Toe Licking Time For US Political Puppies

Israel has just announced the intention to build new settlements on stolen Palestinian lands in the West Bank of the Jordan River only a few days after the American President implicitly gave them the green light to do so with a promise to veto the Palestinian request for membership at the UN no matter what Israel does which is a reversal of his previously stated policy of opposing Israel's criminal behavior. The difference between now and then is that an election is now looming which is the time when the American democracy transforms its political hopefuls into puppies that fall over each other to lick the toes of their Jewish masters. And no one helps to explain this better than Michael Oren even if his intent is not to tell history as it unfolds but to confuse the truth and thus mutilate history.

Michael Oren is the Israeli ambassador to the United States. He wrote a piece that was published in the Wall Street Journal on September 24, 2011 under the title: “Israel Offers Peace – Again” and the subtitle: “By accepting a Jewish state, Palestinians can have their own.” What Oren does in the piece is declare the existence of a confusion that does not exist to place himself in a position to clarify it -- which is what he sets out to do. To this end, he paints a picture that masks and muddies the existing reality, and he portrays in its stead a fantasy of his creation or rather the creation of the entire Jewish propaganda machine of which he is a part. And this would be the latest fantasy concocted by a machine which, for a long time, has been concocting fantasies to clarify situations it has itself masked and muddied for every occasion.

So then, what is it that Oren says is confusing? Here is the answer in his own words: “The Palestinian Authority … seeks recognition for a … state at the United Nations. President Barack Obama … declares his intention to block that scheme … Congress … threatens to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority … American mediators … lobby the other members of the Middle East Quartet … to forge a new framework for renewing Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.” Having said all this, he asks: “Sound confusing?” But of course, the answer must be no, there is no confusion here. What happened, however, was that instead of relating the facts back to back as shown here, the author of the article peppered them with adjectives, interjections, opinions disguised as facts, pseudo-explanations and the like – precisely to confuse the situation. And here are three examples that give a taste of this style. First example, “The [PA] which has already made a pact with [a] terrorist organization…” Second example, “Obama, though deeply committed to Palestinian statehood…” Third example, “And Israel's … Netanyahu waits for the Palestinians to rejoin him at the negotiating table.” You may agree that his peppering has caused some confusion but even then -- what's the big deal, you ask?

You want to know what the big deal is? It is that Michael Oren does not answer the question directly. But if you have been reading him for a while and you are familiar with his style, you would hear his voice whisper some kind of answer in your ear. You would hear him say this: I am Michael Oren, Jewish historian. When I relate a historical event, I do so NOT to tell history but to use the event as a trampoline where I grab the hand of the reader and jump into the world of my fantasy. Once there, the reader finds himself or herself with no point of reference against which to check the facts and so they remain confused. You may say this is diabolic but it works for us, Jews, and this is how we were able -- as a propaganda machine -- to turn the US Congress and other political hopefuls into shameless puppies falling over each other to lick our toes -- and proudly do it in public.

So now you want to know what there is in the realm of the Oren fantasy which is supposed to confuse you. Well, not only does he say you ought to be confused, he assures you that “many observers” are. He makes this assurance without giving details as to who these people are, where he met them or how he assessed them. What he can tell you is that they were dizzied by the diplomacy in New York and that they talked to the self -- not because they are crazy -- but to ask “themselves what exactly had transpired at the U.N., and why?” Thus, take his word for it and be confused like the others because that's the work he does, being the Jewish historian that he is. To this end, forget the picture you ever had in your mind about the situation in the Middles East and replace it with the one engendered by this passage: “What had spurred the Palestinians to turn their backs on a sympathetic U.S. president and a strong Israeli statesman capable of leading his skeptical people to peace? How could the Palestinians risk all they had achieved in recent years – a thriving economy, restored law and order, and significant U.S. Aid – in a reckless bid to snatch the statehood that they could easily have earned?”

Get the new picture, my friend? You have here a sympathetic American president and an Israeli statesman who is strong enough to brave the tide of his skeptical people -- both able and willing to help the Palestinians but the latter turn their backs on them. Not only that but the Palestinians have in recent years achieved a civil and economic life that is as close as it can get to normal life, all of which they risk to lose. But to what end? the Jewish historian forces you to ask. And he responds on your behalf: “...to snatch the statehood that they could easily have earned.” And this is what he guesses may be confusing to others but not to him who sees the matter so very clearly: “The Palestinians came to the U.N. to get a state, but without giving Israel peace in return.” And you, my dear reader, you cannot take it anymore and you scream: This is how Jews write history?

Well yes, he says, and now that he has finished painting a new picture representing the current situation, he uses the same approach to history and the same skills to review the events that have unfolded over the past decades which brought us to this point. He does it in an effort to make you, the reader, understand the Palestinian decision of that dizzying week in New York. He begins in 1947 and tiptoes over the historical highlights till he reaches the year 2008, always portraying the Israelis as being reasonable, generous, open to peace and agreeing to all the demands of the Palestinians but that the Palestinians ended up rejecting the deal each and every time. As to why they did this, he does not repeat the accusation about snatching a statehood they could easily have earned. Instead, he makes this new accusation: “Each time, accepting a Palestinian State meant accepting the Jewish State, a concession the Palestinians were unwilling to make … Yet, in spite of their rejection and trauma, Israelis continued to uphold the vision of two peaceful adjacent states.”

And this is saying a mouthful, my friend, because this is where history is mutilated big time in a very Jewish way. “That goal,” writes Oren “was embraced by Mr. Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party, in a speech at Bar Ilan University in June 2009.” And so you ask: If the Likud Party did not embrace that vision until June 2009, who was it that upheld the vision of two peaceful adjacent states from 1947 to 2008? He only says that it was the Israelis. But how did they uphold the vision? He does not say. But he has an answer when it comes to Netanyahu. He says the leader of the Likud declared his intention to turn to “our Palestinian neighbors … let's begin negotiations immediately without preconditions.” Apparently, this is how you uphold a vision.

So then, what happened after that? you ask. Well, before you can understand what happened after that, you ought to know what happened before that which led to that point in the first place. What happened was that a new Administration led by Barack Obama was elected in the United States and was demanding a change. Since Israel cannot exist without the permanent support, aid and nurture of the United States, Netanyahu did what they always do in Israel at a time like this which is to go through the motion of being responsive and reasonable just to buy time until the spectacle of a new election gets into full swing in America and the Jewish organizations sprint into action and start to blackmail the Administration. And they force the White House to join the congressional puppies at competing for the privilege of licking Jewish toes in public.

But the Jewish historian does not tell you this. Instead, he explains what happened in his own style by hitting you with this: “But Mr. Abbas refused to negotiate.” A little later in that same paragraph, he says this: “But over the course of two and a half years, Mr. Abbas negotiated for a total of six hours, and then refused to discuss Israel's security needs.” Between the two contradictory statements, he says this: “Nevertheless, Mr. Netanyahu ordered the removal of hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, facilitating remarkable economic growth and dramatically increased transport in and out of Gaza.” Wow! Hundreds of checkpoints? How big is the West Bank and how many more checkpoints are there? But never mind answering; let us not get bogged down on account of the numbers. Let us, instead, move on to the notion that the removal of the checkpoints has facilitated a remarkable economic growth in Palestine.

Dear reader, I need to pause here for a moment to relate two important points before I resume the discussion on the matter of Oren's writing style. The first point is that the Jewish propaganda machine has used the growth that happened in Palestine to give credit to Israel as if the Israeli genius was responsible for that growth, an approach that is as Jewish as matzoh bread. The second point is that if you want to know how disgusting a habit this is, ask any teacher what it feels like when everyday a horrible student comes into class 10 minutes late thus interrupting the lecture till he gets settled. You plead with him to be on time, and the next day he comes 5 minutes late instead of 10. He bursts into the classroom and in the name of fairness, demands that you congratulate him for doing better than the previous days. Well, dear reader, this is how it feels like when the Israelis commit a horrible crime and maintain it by the grace of the toe-licking American political puppies till they are forced to ease on it at which time they give themselves full credit for being so generous, and demand that the world acknowledge their magnificence. It is galling like only a Jew can gall you.

But one crime that the Israelis have refused to stop committing is the building of settlements on stolen Palestinian lands. This is what Oren wrote in this regard: “When President Obama asked him to freeze construction in the West Bank settlements, Mr. Netanyahu announced an unprecedented 10-month moratorium.” But to freeze temporarily the act of stealing land is not what is called for here. Throughout history, the land has always been viewed as the “motherland,” and trespassing it by an invading horde or a foreign army has always been viewed as raping it. To call a moratorium instead of stopping the settlement activities definitively is to say to someone: I shall stop raping your mother for a little while then resume the rape. In the meantime, I expect you to thank me for my generosity and reward me by handing me your wife to rape as well. The American political types do it all the time, why not you?

And this is the kind of peace that World Jewry seeks. In the words of Michael Oren: “Though doubtful of the Palestinians' readiness for genuine peace, Israelis retain the hope … Mr. Netanyahu championed that hope and ... brought it to the UN … Unfortunately, Mr. Abbas … wrote earlier this year, 'will pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict [and] pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations.'”

World Jewry has turned America into a rogue elephant that gets crazier and crazier at election time. This is why Abbas has gone to the world to seek relief. The world will now stop the elephant in its tracks or go along with it and transform the Planet into a harem of men, women and children, all dedicated to deliver maximum pleasure to the proverbial Jewish rapist in the same way that the American democracy has been transformed into a despicable form of pornography.

Warning: Netanyahu Wants To Teach The World

On September 23, 2011 the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu gave a speech at the United Nations. Towards the end of it he quoted Winston Churchill who, it was said, lamented some seventy years earlier about the “confirmed unteachability of mankind.” But from the looks and the sounds of it, Netanyahu must have believed that his speech will contribute something toward the teaching of mankind because he went on to say this: “I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the 'unteachability of mankind' is for once proven wrong.”

The problem with the Jewish culture in general but especially the Rabbinical Judaism faction which began to take roots eighteen hundred years ago is that it is too closely tied to religion and is for all practical purposes powered by it. Thus, the relationship between those who seek to teach and those who are supposed to learn is one that recognizes the teacher -- who usually is but not always a rabbi -- as having the kind of absolute knowledge which is derived from God. And this teacher would be transmitting his knowledge and wisdom to students who are but subjects of the realm. As such they must accept to play a subordinated role to that of the teacher therefore remain unquestioning toward him.

And so, every Jew who is today in the business of transmitting information of any kind or any importance to someone, view themselves as being teachers – if only for a fleeting moment – thus regard themselves as being guardians and transmitters of divine knowledge to an individual, an audience -- be it large or small – or to the general public. When these people speak, they expect to see expressions of awe and appreciation on the faces of the audience even if it is a captive audience that never wanted to be in the hellish position of having to hear what may well sound like unmitigated crap spewed by an ordained rabbi or a self-styled one.

It is inside this sort of mentality that was brewed the idea of Israel as being the nation of Jewish tailors, jewelers and violinists from Eastern Europe who nevertheless taught farming to the Palestinians that had been farming the land of milk and honey and the land of the Fertile Crescent since the beginning of time. It is also where the idea was brewed that Israel was a nation of Russian poets and Ethiopian dwellers of mud huts who told NATO all about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and taught it how to get rid of them. And it is in such mentality that was brewed the idea that Israel was the nation of sheep herders from Yemen and from Morocco who taught the Americans how to make drones and use them against the enemy in Asia and the Horn of Africa. In short, Israel is portrayed as a nation of natural teachers who teach the world how to be the best world it can be in the same way that Israel is the best country that a country can be. And without a doubt it was in this spirit while powered by this set of beliefs that Netanyahu addressed the General assembly of the United Nations.

You smile, you clear your throat and you say: “Okay, so then what did this guy Netanyahu want to teach the world this time?” And before you finish asking the question, the answer hits your ears like a miraculous thunder out of the bowels of Heaven: “The truth,” says he, the truth is what I want you to hear. And not just the truth but the “systematic assault on the truth.” It is that the President of Iran claimed that the Holocaust was a lie, says Netanyahu and he wanted to correct that. To prove the Iranian President wrong, the Prime Minister of Israel described three places he visited lately which to him is proof enough that the Holocaust did happen. Consequently, he called the President of Iran a “Holocaust-denier” and commended those who left the room when he spoke the day before in that same hall of the UN General Assembly because, as he said, they stood for moral clarity and they brought honor to their countries. As to those who gave the denier a hearing, Netanyahu asked them point blank: Have you no shame? Have you no decency? He went on to hurl a few more insults at them and called their stance a disgrace and a mockery of the UN Charter.

You may want to say: This is the stuff that great teachers are made of. But before you do that you should know that by now Netanyahu's audience had dwindled to a small core as people were leaving the hall. Still he went on to warn the remaining few that the President of Iran and his odious regime threaten more than the Jews because “history has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.” He then gave a history lesson in a style that tells those of us who recognize it as being nothing more than vintage Judeo-Yiddish demagogic spin. In fact, what Netanyahu did was to tie the denial of the Holocaust with the religion of Islam. Whoa! you scream, hold your horses, mister, hold them back a moment because there is much that is deceptive here and much that must be corrected.

First of all, the so-called denial of the Holocaust did not start in a Muslim or Arab country; it started in Christian Europe. It did not start in any European country, it started in Germany. It was not a view held by many Germans but a subject debated by a small group of people who were fed up with the constant milking of the war events by organized Jews that never lived in Germany and never had family there but used the German feeling of guilt with regard to what was done to the Jews and asked for reparation payments over and over again without showing a sign that their demands will ever end.

Normally, when faced with a situation where a legal demand for compensation is likely to come, the thing to do is deny guilt and let the accuser prove otherwise. In fact, if you look at your car insurance, it should say on the back of it what to do and what not to do in case of an accident. One of the points made is that you should never admit the accident was your fault even if you are certain it was. Thus, you can see that denying guilt at the outset is standard practice, something that defense lawyers always recommend. As a consequence, more than 99 per cent of the time, people plead not guilty to an accusation they know is true but choose to let the accuser make it stick if they can.

Well, my friend, this normal procedure did not sit well with the Jewish organizations. They jumped into the act and asked the German Government to criminalize a legitimate form of self defense that people use everywhere without giving it a second thought. But criminalizing the act of self defense is something that happened in Germany, you saw it happen, you became outraged and you shouted that it was horrendously unfair! And you were correct especially in view of the fact that the Jewish organizations that worked to have the procedure banned were the ones that never stopped milking the German taxpayers. My friend, this Judeo-Yiddish way of doing things is not something that is practiced in theory; it is a savage reality to those who have suffered under a freakish law enacted by a German Government that has acceded to a flaky request just to please the Jews. Innocent people have gone to jail because of this legislation, and the time has come for the German Government to join the civilized world and repeal this anti-democratic law of primitive savages. Let people deny the Holocaust if that's what they want to do; or question it or believe in it as a religious dogma. It is their God-given right. No government can impose the belief in a historical event on someone. Period. You understand this, Germany?

And this thing happened in the first place because Germany managed to rebuild itself after the war and became an economic powerhouse. All the while, the Jews in Israel were beginning to discover that their culture did not permit them to run a normal country with a normal economy. The Zionist project was faltering and the Israelis were coming to the conclusion that they will need a permanent form of financing from the outside to keep Israel afloat. They saw Germany as a cash cow they could milk and they used the excuse of the Holocaust to demand reparation payments without end in sight. They got it again and again and again, and this is when the working people of Germany began to question why money was being deducted from their paychecks to be sent to Israel without proper explanation. They wanted to know the specifics for which they were made to pay this high price, and this is where the Jewish organizations responded by expanding the reach of the Holocaust denying accusations to encompass anyone they did not like such as those who asked too many questions. They called Holocaust deniers even those that did not deny, and they turned life hellish for some people to intimidate others. And this is another good reason why the German anti-democratic law of primitive savages must be repealed right away even if it is not expected that anyone will ever again be jailed on account of it.

But this is not the history that Netanyahu has relayed at the United Nations General Assembly on that day. Instead, he recited a made-for-the-moment fabrication of his own and called it history. He built on top of his fabrication a demagogic case by which to foster hatred against Islam and to add fuel to the fire of the war between the religions that the Jewish organizations started several decades ago. This was the time when those organizations contributed mightily to the defeat of America in Vietnam, something they did by weakening the home front using such props as The Pentagon Papers and many others. The Jewish organizations did this to get America out of Asia and into the Middle East where they pit it against the Arabs and against Islam. You may want to say at this point: With a friend like this who needs a skunk to sleep with in the same tent! And you would be joining many in the world who never stop asking this question about America.

Netanyahu went on to laud the success made by mankind in the fields of science and technology, and he promised a magnificent future for humanity on their account. He then dropped the obligatory Jewish bullshit that fell on the head of the audience like a dump of considerable weight and stink: “I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances – by leading innovations in...” and he listed every field of science and technology you can think of. But when you analyze this idea, you find that if what he says is true, it would mean that Israel has two million scientists and engineers working and doing research not only in laboratories but in actual foundries that produce steel, copper, aluminum and all sorts of metals; and it would mean that they are working in factories producing home appliances and home entertainment equipment, cars, trucks, farm implements, construction equipment, communication gizmos and all sorts of tools and machines that equip those foundries and those factories.

But for this to happen, Israel would need 25 million blue collar workers laboring in those places which is double what America has today. And when you think that America, Japan and Germany dropped a few fields to maintain a lead in other fields, you conclude that Israel must be a land where biblical style miracles happen in modern times. How else could a population of 6 million Jews and 1.5 million Muslim and Christian Arabs do the work of 600 million? Or maybe this is all Jewish bullshit where the only truth is that there are no superlatives big enough to describe the exaggeration that these people are capable of spewing when they describe what they have accomplished. The Jewish bullshit is simply a dump of cosmic dimension, and it stinks like hell.

But all of that promise can still elude mankind, says Netanyahu, because of the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction. Aha, you say, he is finally going to talk about two important points troubling humanity these days. First, he is going to say something about the religious fanaticism that makes his people pretend to be the preferred children of God and that makes someone like him exaggerate Israel's success in the fields of science and technology. And second, he is going to talk about the weapons of mass destruction that Israel wants the world to believe it has but wants ambiguity to make it look doubtful it has them. But instead of bringing moral clarity to the subject -- something he discussed earlier in the speech -- he attacked Iran again. Maybe we should have a new expression to describe the morality of these people. Let us call it: Jewish moral clarity of the ambiguous kind. Or Jewish moral ambiguity of the clearest kind. Or clear bullshit of the Jewish kind.

And guess what Netanyahu did after that. He attacked the United Nations; the same United Nations that created Israel. But why did he do that? Why did he bite the hand that fed him? Because the institution is now considering the membership of Palestine. You see, my friend, to attack someone when you want something from them has always been the Jewish thing to do. But this is an attitude that almost never worked for them anywhere in the world until they came to America. This is where they discovered that when they decide they want to dominate an institution, the best thing they can do is attack it. This is how they took control of the media, the cultural and the financial institutions, the Senate, the House of Representatives and their committees, the various arms of the State Department, the White House and so on and so forth. Talking about the hand that fed them; these guys are stuffed with American hands.

Having attacked the UN, he then told it what to do. He said there is a report by the Human Rights Council condemning Israel for the attack it launched against Gaza and he wanted the UN General Assembly to reject it. To convince the delegates that they should do so, he dumped on them the same arguments that he and his people always dump on the Americans. It goes like this: We have good intentions; our enemies have bad intentions. When there is a fight between us, we are always right and they are always wrong. Thus, if we go to them with American made smart bombs, helicopters and jets; if we pinpoint and blow up their women and children asleep in their bedrooms, if we blast thousands of them to smithereens, and if in the process they kill one or two of our soldiers, they are the terrorists that stayed home and we are the saints that invaded their space. You condemn them and you kiss our bums. Enjoy the stink, America!

Finally, he said that he and all of Israel want peace; the reason why he wants the Palestinians to remain disarmed. You see, my friend, this is the way that he can invoke the Jewish form of moral clarity and confuse between the PEACE that he professes and the PIECE of land that Israel never ceases to grab from the Palestinians. We have seen this morality play itself out for six long decades, and it brought nothing but horror and terror to the people that have no means to defend themselves. I say, it is time that the Palestinians be given the means to defend themselves which, when they do, Israel will be forced to behave. And when this happens, the Jewish people will have been given a better chance at living a normal life at long last -- after centuries of trial and error resulting in countless dismal failures.

Netanyahu has nothing to teach the world. On the contrary, he and the Israelis have much to learn from it especially from the Palestinians who have shown grace and poise under Jewish savagery – so much so that the world has bowed to them and has left Netanyahu with no one to applaud his speech except a pathetic American delegation that was once the star of such events but was reduced to the role of comical relief popping up once in a while to soften the specter of tragedy that is Israel.

Voices Of Infamy Fill The Air These Days

Would you believe your ear if you overheard a conversation that went more or less as follows between two men in America or anywhere else in the world?

MAN 1: It was dull in our household, we didn't know what to do with our leisure time then came this man to live among us and suddenly it was like carnival every day in our house.

MAN 2: Funny you should say this because the same thing happened in our household when a man came amongst us and made things look and feel so interesting, we cannot live without him anymore, especially my wife who says he fulfills the duty of a husband like she always dreamed I would.

MAN 1: The same thing happened to us, and this is why when he asked to make love to our little girl too and teach her all about love, we said yes, and now we know she'll grow up knowing all about love and sex and how to enjoy them to the fullest extent.

MAN 2: You know what, we did better than you. When our man asked for the little girl, we gave him the girl and the little boy too so that he can grow up knowing all about love and sex and learn to appreciate them. I suppose I should consider myself better than you unless you decide to catch up with me in which case we'll be equal.

Your mind, my dear reader, must have veered to some Eskimo tribe where you may have heard that men share their wives with the strangers who might drop in on them but you are astonished about the fact that the children were offered as sex objects and used by the strangers in the story. But relax because none of this happened in reality. The story is an allegory for what happens everyday among the White Anglo Saxon Protestants (WASP) who run for office in America. And if you consider this to be a disease, then you should be alarmed to know that it is contagious and that it is spreading among White Catholics and Blacks too.

The sex maniac and pedophile that they compete to satisfy is the generic Jew. His sex addiction is the service of Israel, and the family he fornicates to service Israel is America. In fact, the characters who run for office in America behave like the two men and their wives in the story because there is nothing they will not say or do to give the Jew the best orgasm he can have so as to secure for themselves not his vote or his monetary contribution – they are minimal by all accounts – but his goodwill because without it, they believe he can turn the media against them and destroy their campaigns.

When the Prime Minister of Israel forces the American Administration to invite him with the express purpose of going there and urinating on the rug of the White House in full view of the cameras; when that character addresses a joint session of a Congress that has been gridlocked for months, saying NO at every occasion to its own President; when the Jew gets 29 standing ovations; when the majority leader of the Senate accosts him at the end of the speech to tell him it was the best he ever heard in that chamber, you know that America was given away by its elders to the most virulent rapists and pedophiles of all time. And you look again at the way that the majority leader spoke to the Prime Minister of Israel and you look at the indifferent manner by which the Prime Minister responded, and you begin to formulate another allegory inside your head. It is this: The Jew ejaculated 29 times over the heads of the Americans in both of their houses of legislation and they were filled with so much joy, they got orgasmic themselves 29 times. At the end of this pornographic exercise, the majority leader liked the performance so much that he ran after the Jew to say he wants to be his condom: “You can wear me like a condom, next time so that I may be a part of you delight,” says he and the Jew gives him a dirty look of disdain as if to say: “I had much better offers than you, old man. How dare you think of me as deserving of something as wretched as you.”

This is what America has been reduced to, my friend, and the net result is that its President can do nothing without getting permission from the Prime Minister of Israel. To wit, the President asked the Prime Minister just the other day to tell some 80 American legislators visiting Israel to okay the transfer of some money to the Palestinian Authority not because it was the right thing to do; not because it was American law; not because it was America's international obligation but because in the final analysis, Israel will benefit in that the security situation in the West Bank will be enhanced which can only be good for Israel.

And now that the season of American primaries to the presidency have come to coincide with the request of the Palestinians to have their country admitted as full member of the United Nations, the candidates are being mobilized in America by the generic Jew to stand in the way of this development even though it would be the most promising at serving the cause of peace if it happened. The reason why the Jews do not want to see the creation of a Palestinian state is that it will deny them the opportunity to gobble up the rest of Palestine by creeping annexation much as they have been doing over the last 63 years.

And so, the candidates are now running around promising the handful of columnists and editors who can possibly hurt them that they will offer American boys and girls to every generic Jew who will express the desire to have fun at the expense of America's honor.

They siphoned off everything else that America had, from wealth to weaponry; what is left is America's honor and now they want that too.

This Is What It's All About

A Jewish lawyer and a good friend used to say: “If you push the horse hard enough, he will speak up and you will get it from the horse's mouth.” Well, my friends, the horse has spoken and we have it from his mouth. We have this: “Are Palestinians entitled to a state? Before certain readers erupt at the mere suggestion that Palestinians may not be so entitled, we'd note that the Kurds … don't have a state. Neither do the Tamils … Uighurs … Tibetans … Basques … Chechens … or Flemish …” Here the horse is the Wall Street Journal which published an editorial on September 19, 2011 under the title: “The Palestinian Statehood Gambit” and the subtitle: “The U.S. should respond by cutting funds for the U.N.” In reality, the spirit of the horse is the Jewish lobby that is behind it all; the Wall Street Journal is the mouthpiece that is spewing it.

I do not presume to have pushed that lobby to do a foolish thing but I take liberty in telling a white lie by saying that I am not even happy these people exposed themselves as being foolish. Let us now see what is wrong with them. It is that they are powered by what has come to be known as the Dershowitz Syndrome. This is a psycho-cultural disease that says Israel has the right to do to the Palestinians anything horrific that someone has ever done to someone else on this planet. And of course, the right extends to all those who labor on behalf of Israel and try to hurt the Palestinians or hurt their backers. This is why the Journal has called on the U.S. to cut off funds for the U.N. The occasion here is that the Palestinian Authority (PA) has decided to declare statehood and seek recognition by going to the Security Council where it will ask for full membership. If the US will dare to veto the application, the PA will go to the General Assembly where it will most certainly be approved for the lesser status of observer state.

Reading the editorial and getting past that introduction, you now see that the authors begin to show their true colors. They do two things in this regard; they tell the Palestinians and the world what good things will not happen to the people of Palestine; and they tell what bad things will happen to them. First, the people of the lobby say this: “A vote at the U.N. won't create a Palestinian state...”, then they say this: “...and will likely retard the creation of one … It won't remove any Israeli settlements … and might … accelerate the pace of construction … [Israel] could also freeze tax transfers … The U.S. Congress might … cut off aid.”

With the exception of the cutting of American aid which is the prerogative of a sovereign nation, everything else on that list represents an aggravated criminal act that Israel threatens to undertake as an affront to the will of the United Nation. This is like the bank thief who threatens to kill the staff and the customers if the manager calls the police. But you know that the police will do little to stop the thief because it is the United Nation that is itself under the boot of America which allows Israel to live in that manner; even supplies it with the weapons to do what it does. America protects Israel in world forums especially at the United Nation where it uses the veto to shield it as it threatens to do in this case. In fact, America is saying to the world “Rule of law” my ass, this is for show and for pretense – Haven't you learned? When you trust me you proceed at your peril.

Having laid down the law of the savage jungle as it is practiced by Israel, by the Jewish lobby and by America, the editorial writers of the Journal now seek to demonstrate that it is the right way to doing things by contrasting it with the way that the Palestinians do things, a behavior they want you to believe is wrong. To this end, they scream at you: “It is all in the intent,” which you recognize as being the only tool they have in their toolbox by which they seek to convince people that all Jews are saints and everyone else is devilish. Brace yourself now, my friend because here it comes: “Why, then are the Palestinians intent on winning...? The charitable explanation is that they are using the statehood bid … to get Israel to agree to … a halt in settlement construction.”

Can you believe this, dear reader; can you believe it? What a horrible people these Palestinians must be! Here comes the Jews with the good intention to steal their land on which to build illegal settlements, and how do the Palestinians respond? They go to the United Nation which is the court to settle international disputes and they complain there. What scandal! What horror! Does this not send the chill down your spine, my friend? Now you know why the American Congress is so hot under the collar about the unseemly behavior of those Palestinians.

But there is more because one of those Palestinians is Mahmoud Abbas, their President. He too has bad intentions. In fact, he has more than that; he has a real ambition. Can you believe it? He has an ambition and not just any ambition, it is a real ambition. So then, what is this real ambition? Well, haven't you heard? He wrote about it in the New York Times in May. Can you believe it? He didn't even publish it in the Wall Street Journal; he sent it to the New York Times. And here is what this ungrateful man said: “Palestine's admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only as a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Criminal Court.”

What is wrong with this man, Abbas? He must be taking literally this thing about “rule of law.” Does he not know that the Jews are above the law and that most American politicians would send their children in harm's way to lose an arm, a leg and a reproductive organ to defend the Jewish right to live in a permanent state of criminality? Look what this will mean to Israel, warns the editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal, it will mean this: “...not the usual feckless resolutions at the U.N.'s Human Rights Council, but travel bans and international arrest warrants for Israeli soldiers involved in the 'occupation' of a … sovereign state.”

Wow! Did you get this? Abbas wants to move the whole matter from the feckless to the responsible. Can you imagine Israel being forced to act responsibly? What scandal! What horror! What chill running down your spine and mine! “In other words,” say the editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal, “what the Palestinians seek ... [is] another tool … [to] destroy Israel.” Yes, my friend, for Israel to act responsibly, says the Jewish lobby, would destroy it. This is why it is better to destroy the people of Palestine than change the regime of the fake state of Israel, an act that will save the Palestinian people and the Jews too. What calamity!

Having come to this point believing that these people are evil geniuses, you are hit with the reality that they must have a low IQ. As did a few others before them, they pick on something that Mr. Abbas said and they interpret it in a way that scares them instead of reassuring them. Here is that quote: “We are going to complain that as Palestinians we have been under occupation for 63 years.” Well, what happens here is that 63 years ago takes you back to 1948 when the United Nation mandated a homeland for the Jews in Palestine and gave them a state with defined borders. Ever since that time, Israel has illegally expanded by annexing territory it is not entitled to. Thus, the Palestinians can legally ask that Israel go back to the borders of 1948. The reality, however, is that the Palestinians are now asking to go back to the borders of 1967 with land swaps that will take into account a new fait accompli that Israel has forced on them. By accepting this deal, Israel would have gotten a guarantee that the Palestinians will not ask it to return to the 1948 border. But the truth is that the Israelis do not want to go back to 1967, they want the whole West Bank.

Let me be cruel for a moment now. I do this not because I am cruel but because I want you to see something cruel. I begin by asking you this: Do you want to know what it feels like to be mugged, my friend? Here; let the Wall Street Journal mug you. Read this: “Mr. Abbas may also see the U.N. Gambit as a cost-free exercise, since the international community (including Israel and the U.S.) hasn't exactly been punctilious in holding Palestinians to account for violating their diplomatic or political undertakings.” Here is a bunch of Jews that took pain to say piss on the law and the rule of law; we are above all this and we shall never abide by any law – now complaining that neither the world nor Israel nor America beat up on the Palestinians for not abiding by undertakings that the bunch does not even define. Crazy but what the heck!

Happy with their performance so far and thinking of themselves as prophets, they now look into the future and tell you what will happen. They say that there will be suggestions to defund the PA but that objections will be raised, and someone will want to accommodate these objections. Instead of doing this, say the editors of the Journal, what should happen is that America should close the office of the Palestinian representative in Washington and cut off funding to the U.N. itself. That is, America should cut off its own arm, leg and reproductive organ for the sake of the Jews who will gain nothing from this exercise except the knowledge that someone is willing to mutilate themselves to please them. A sick American response to a sick Jewish request.

And finally, they reiterate one more time that: “Perhaps it's also time to rethink the fundamental desirability of a Palestinian state...” And this is what it's all about, my friend. Way back in the Nineteen Sixties Golda Meir was saying that there was no such thing as a Palestinian people. The rabbis got to work on this and found passages in the Bible that justified having only one people in that place. Then the Christian fanatics of the American South offered to act as the echo repeaters for those rabbis. So now we have a chorus of idiots – among them presidential candidates -- urging the American Administration to join that racket and perpetuate the crime against the people of Palestine which, at its core, is a crime against humanity.

Let's see how a lawyer, former community worker and Nobel laureate in the White House feels about committing crimes against humanity.

A Friend Worse Than The Enemy From Hell

On April 14, 2011 Dan Senor published an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that is as phony as the economy of Israel about which he wrote a book on a previous occasion – except that he did not say the Israeli economy was as phony as a three dollar bill; he said it was a miracle. As to the WSJ article, it has a title that comes in the form of a question: “Why Obama Is Losing the Jewish Vote” and a subtitle that comes in the form of a response to that question: “He [Obama] doesn't have a 'messaging' problem. He has a record of bad policies and anti-Israel rhetoric.”

Dan Senor begins to build a case by mentioning the New York special election for the House of Representatives which took place the day before the publication of the article, an election that he describes as being “the first electoral outcome directly affected by President Obama's Israel policy.” There is no denying that the outcome was a decisive loss to the party of the President but as always, opinions differ as to whether the loss can be attributed to this factor or to that one. Certainly, you would expect that there exists one-issue voters in that district as they do everywhere else but the fact that the district is heavily populated by Orthodox Jews does not mean that all of them care more about Israel than they do about America.

The truth is that America is doing badly economically these days, and the economy is an issue that touches the lives of everyone, the reason why it is now and forever the primary concern of voters in that country as it is everywhere else in the world. In any case, this is neither here nor there because unlike what happens at the level of the House of Representatives, the Jewish vote is no more important to America than Israel is to the world. When you consider the fact that for every Jewish vote gained by someone running statewide (for a senate seat) or nationwide (for the presidency), as many as five votes can be lost in the Arab and Muslim communities, you do not pander exclusively to the Jewish voters. Add to this the fact that voters in all the other communities do not like to see their politicians pander exclusively to one group or do worse by selling the country to a handful that works for the benefit of a foreign infliction at the expense of America.

Dan Senor then goes on to mention the former mayor of New York City, Ed Koch who is of the president's party but said publicly that he voted for the candidate of the other party because “he wanted to send a message to the president about his anti-Israel policies.” Maybe it escaped the attention of Senor that Alan Dershowitz did the same thing. And this is not the only similarity joining these two characters; they have something else in common. It is that Ed Koch called the Palestinians the scum of the Earth because they threw stones at the Israeli soldiers of occupation, and Dershowitz said that Israel has the right to inflict on the Palestinians any and every horror that someone has inflicted on someone else throughout history. Birds of the feather as you know.

Still, Senor takes solace in the fact that in two battleground states – Florida and Pennsylvania -- out of the fifty states that make up the Union, there are “significant” Jewish populations that can make a difference, something that should worry the President, he says. And he adds that early indications are to the effect that the Jewish donations to the President's campaign may come to only two thirds what they were the last time around; which means he could lose one third. Well, when the worst that can happen is that you may lose one third of the votes and donations of a group that represents less than 2% of the population, and you worry about that, you can only be considered a traitor who should be sent to jail not to the White House.

Even then, as mentioned already, there is the possibility that another demographic group as well as the American electorate in general will do more than offset the presumed loss of the Jewish vote and the Jewish donations. Moreover, there is the fact -- as the Senor article mentions -- that the Obama campaign has launched a counteroffensive to reassure the Jewish donors. And this is where Dan Senor steps in and gives his two-cent worth of advice to the team that will be in charge of that counteroffensive. To this end, he draws up a list of the areas where, in his view, the President came short with regard to the causes of World Jewry and of Israel.

The points that he makes cover the period from February 2008 to May 2011. The first point concerns the day when Senator Obama told an audience in Cleveland some Jews consider you to be anti-Israel if you do not adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel. So what? You ask and Dan Senor quickly gives you the gotcha moment. He says that the Likud Party was not even in power at the time. So what? You still ask and he says that it was the Likud which gave up the Sinai and Gaza. But knowing history, you say no, Israel was kicked out of the Sinai and of Gaza because its military was defeated in these places as it was in South Lebanon and in half the Golan Heights on the Syrian front.

Ploughing ahead, Dan Senor writes that at the time Obama said what he said; Israel was being led by the centrist party Kadima that was pursuing an unprecedented territorial compromise. What does he mean? You ask. Does he mean that territorial compromise is a good thing? The answer seems to be yes from the way he presents the case. And so you ask: Where did Obama go wrong then? And where does Senor want him to correct his mistake, if any? Would stating the irrelevant point that in February of 2008 Kadima and not Likud was in power satisfy this guy? And you wonder how it is that such trivial, adolescent and nonsensical characters get to acquire such a high profile in America, and how they get to hold important positions. This is sick, man, this is so very sick.

He now mentions the meeting that Mr. Obama had with Jewish leaders at the White House in July of 2009 when he told them he will put daylight between America and Israel. The President explained that for 8 years under W. Bush there was no daylight and nothing was accomplished. And this is where Senor alarmingly asks: Nothing? And he cites an accomplishment to prove the President wrong. He says that Ariel Sharon had uprooted thousands of settlers in Gaza (where the Israeli army was defeated) and the Northern West bank. So you ask: What happened to Ariel Sharon after that? And this is where you get the big surprise: He resigned from the Likud Party to build a majority party based on a two-state consensus, says Dan Senor. Well then, Obama was correct in thinking of the Likud as being the party of trouble, you conclude. Even Sharon felt this way, and whether or not the likud is in power in Israel, those in America who follow its dictates better engage in some serious self-reflection.

And this is exactly what Obama said to the Jewish leaders during that same meeting. He suggested that Israel should “engage in serious self-reflection.” But Senor says that this statement stunned the audience. And he seems to have been stunned himself both because of what was said and because -- as he remarks -- he cannot envision the president delivering a similar lecture to Muslim leaders. And I say: Why should he do so? This sort of lecture is delivered by the Jewish dominated liberal and conservative media in North America 24 hours a day everyday of the week to Christian and Muslim Arabs as well as to Muslims of every race.

Here in Canada, we have several television programs moderated by Jews where Muslims are regularly invited to wash their laundry and to bicker among themselves in public. If this can happen here, imagine what can happen in the Arab countries and the Muslim world. Moreover, Senor says that Israeli society is many things, but lacking self-reflection isn't one of them. What this guy is confusing are two different notions. It is that self-reflection and the gazing at one's belly-button are two different things. The day that someone like me will be allowed to moderate a discussion between Dan Senor and someone like say, Norman Finklestein will be the day that Senor will get his eyes off his belly button and look at the things that will make him think and write like a grownup. He will then know what it means to engage in self-reflection.

Lacking the ability to get his eyes off his Jewish belly button, Dan Senor now complains about something that happened in September of 2009 when Obama declared at the UN General Assembly that “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” What galls Senor is that the President drew a connection between rocket attacks and living conditions in Gaza without criticizing the Palestinians unconditionally. Here, I have the duty as a citizen of the world to hammer something into the head of Dan Senor and all those like him. It is that people of all races and all religions are fed up with the Jewish demand that something bad be said about someone every time something bad is pointed out about a Jew or Israel. People are gradually drawn to the view that if the Jews will insist on maintaining this mentality, they will prove that Hitler was correct in trying to annihilate them. Some people even predict that every Holocaust memorial will eventually be turned into a museum whose theme will be: “Look what happens to you when you be a Jew” and there will be a statue of Hitler at the entrance. It's all up to you, Dan; it's up to you now.

We now come to March of 2010 when the Vice President traveled to the Middle East, and Israel announced plans to continue looting Palestinian land and property. Here, it is worth remembering that during the W. Bush years, the Israelis not only did the looting, they used American jets, helicopters and smart bombs to pinpoint Palestinian women and children in their bedrooms and bomb them to kingdom come as a way to show to the Palestinians and to the world that the W was their lap dog who laps them to show admiration when they behave like this. But because Obama did not lap them, they slapped his Vice President on that same day who departed Israel publicly, leaving it to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to do the rest. She berated Netanyahu during a 45-minute phone call and had the Israeli ambassador called to the State Department where he was dressed-down. In addition, the American Middle East envoy canceled a previously planned trip to Israel, and America joined Europe in condemning Israel.

You can imagine how bitterly Dan Senor complains about all this but we're not done yet because Mr. Axelrod who is chief adviser to the President went on television and called an insult and an affront to the United States the planned looting of Palestinian land and property with the intention of turning these into Israel's capital. On top of that, Robert Gibbs who is the Press Secretary of the White House also went on television and “accused” Netanyahu of weakening the trust between the two countries, complains Dan Senor in the article. How much more can the belly that aches for no reason take of this sort of assault before aching yet again? But with a heavy heart and a belly that was not yet repaired, Prime Minister Netanyahu still traveled to Washington ten days later to mend fences, says Senor, but the Prime Minister of Israel was snubbed by the President of the United States who allowed no photo op, no joint statement and had him shoved out the side door.

Not only do these people complain about what they believe is done to them that must not be done, they complain about what they believe is not done for them that ought to be done. An example of this is what happened in April of 2010 when Obama did not intervene after it became clear that Turkey and Egypt intended to use the Obama sponsored Washington summit on nuclear proliferation to condemn the Israeli nuclear program. And so I ask: What is wrong with these people? Why should there always be someone standing by to feed them, protect them and clean after them when they crap on the world and make a stinking mess?

And look what happened after that. Actually, nothing happened for nearly a year at which point the President must have gotten bored and decided it was time to pull an encore. And this is how Dan Senor describes this episode: “March 2011: Mr. Obama returned to his habit of urging Israelis to engage in self-reflection, inviting Jewish community leaders to the White House and instructing them to 'search your souls' about Israel's dedication to peace.”

Two months later, in May of 2011, the State Department issued a press release containing what Senor and people like him consider to be an error that is not a typographical error but an affront to the Jewish sense of being so above the law, America has the duty to disregard its own laws and those that bind it by international treaties in order to accommodate the fantasies of Israel and those of Jews. Look what happened, cries the ever bellyaching Dan Senor: “The State Department issued a press release declaring that … James Steinberg would be visiting 'Israel, Jerusalem and the West Bank.' In other words, Jerusalem is not part of Israel.” No, this was not a typographical error because Jerusalem never was a part of Israel under any law except the Israeli law of annexation which is a crime against humanity. But Senor continues to bellyache that Obama later delivered his Arab Spring speech in which he adhered to those same laws by demanding that Israel return to the pre-1967 borders with land swaps.

Still, the man wants to be fair to the American President and give credit where credit is due so he admits that Mr. Obama made exceptions where the security of Israel was concerned. But, he goes on to say that Obama has overall “built the most consistently one-sided diplomatic record against Israel of any American president in generations.” What? Run that by me again! What else do you expect from America but security? You say you want to be friends but with a friend like you, the duty of an American President sworn to look after his people would be to limit the damage to his country by swapping you with an enemy from hell.

Go find someone new on who to sponge, you have sucked the life out of America where the preoccupation must now be to rebuild the country and restore its old glory, something that can be done only when you're out of sight and out of mind. Go away. Just go and don't look back.

The Self Perpetuating Predicament Of Israel

Bret Stephens writes a weekly column for the Wall Street Journal and on September 13, 2011 published a piece under the title: “Israel's Predicament”. He lists a number of incidents which, he says, happened to Israel in a single month and he ends with this plea: “But is it too much to ask its [Israel's] friends for support – this time, for once, without cavil or reservation?” The importance in pointing out how the column ends is that the end ties in with the beginning where the author asks: “What is Israel's predicament?” and he responds: “It is surrounded … by enemies … [and] its friends are only ambivalently committed to its security.”

Thus, you can see that the Stephens argument basically goes this way: Because Israel is surrounded by enemies who do not like it and by friends who do not care much about it, I ask you to support it if only this one time. The thing is that those of us who follow the antics of the Jewish lobby know it always asks that Israel be supported without cavil or reservation “this one time only” an average of ten times a day, everyday of the week and the sabbath too. And what this demonstrates is that these people are a forgetful bunch or that they are an ungrateful one. However, those who know history don't ask themselves which it is because they would have concluded long ago what the Turks and the American military have concluded only now which is that the Israelis (read the Jews) are an ungrateful bunch.

To wit, from the time when the ancient Egyptians saw how destitute the Hebrew tribes were and took them in from the cold to foster them during 4 centuries -- to the time when the various European people sheltered the Jews during the 18 centuries that followed the Roman occupation, these people have bit the hands that fed them. Ask them why they behave the way they do and they will recite a long contorted story that boils down to this: If they cease to be the way they are, they cease to be Jews. Thus, to be or not to be a Jew has always been the existential question confronting these people. Many of them got tired of the funky life they were made to live and left the Judaic movement to live like ordinary human beings. But the sad part is that they were replaced by the non-Jews who thought that a human hand was a tasty thing to have for a snack.

The other thing that hits you in the eye as you read the first paragraph of the Stephens column is the word “ambivalently” because you are immediately reminded of the fact that these people live by a never ending stream of ambiguities they create around them, the most important being whether or not Israel has a nuclear arsenal. And so you ask yourself if there is not a relationship between ambiguity and ambivalence. You ask: Could it be that Israel's so-called friends are ambivalent about its fate because it is ambiguous about its own intentions? Stephens hints at a possible answer to this question in that he argues that Israel needs a commitment to its security. In fact this is what his column is about; it is a list of what gives Israel a feeling of insecurity. And so you go over the list to see what it may reveal.

The list begins with 7 pesky incidents he says happened to Israel between August 18 and September 9. What he does not say is that if these incidents were put together in a basket, the Palestinians would gladly exchange them for one day of annoyances inflicted on them by the Israeli occupation. In fact, Israel can avoid the recurrence of such incidents by ending the occupation. Also, it is worth noting that the common theme running through all these incidents is that the people of the region are fed up with Israel's conduct and they want to see it change. The trouble, however, is that for Israel to change means that it will have to give up on its territorial ambitions, and this is something that would contradict the purpose for which it was created as well as the reason why powerful foreign interests are financing it now and keeping it afloat.

Stephens then goes on to mention an item that relates to a revelation made on September 5. It was brought about by a Wikileaks release in which an individual (probably a Jew) offered the opinion that "the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic." Rather than be impressed by the mention of the word democratic – always a big deal for him and for the propaganda arm of the Jewish lobby -- he is offended by the revelation because, as he says, the individual in question belongs to an organization called the New Israel Fund whose dedication is this: “A vision of Israel as both a Jewish homeland and a shared society at peace with itself and its neighbors.” And here too, you find another word that offends Stephens; it is the mention of peace with the neighbors. Thus, democracy and peace are not really what he, what the Wall Street Journal or what the Jewish lobby want to see in the Middle East; they want to see an ethnically cleansed Jewish state that will encompass Judea and Samaria which mean the entire occupied West Bank of the Jordan River.

And then he does something that comes to us, the readers, like manna from the sky. What he does is compare Israel with Pakistan and Zimbabwe which he describes as: “...the wretched mess they have made of their existence as self-governing states.” This confirms what the rest of us have suspected for a long time. It is that Stephens and people like him do not believe in what they preach when they portray Israel as being God's gift to humanity, a model for us to follow and a teacher that will show us the way to salvation. In fact, this is not the first time that these people have compared Israel to someone whose conduct they were saying was abhorrent. They did it during the meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission at Durban when they compared Israel and Iran, a country they were portraying at the time as being the perfect model of a theocratic state – something they wanted Israel to emulate. To this, I can only say: Thank you, Bret, you are at your best when you betray your private thoughts and your innermost sentiments. But then again, this is where true artistic creativity comes from. I say you should continue to nurture this tendency because it can lead you to write great novels.

And there is a good reason why he should consider writing fiction; it is that he is bad at making logical arguments that hold together and remain coherent. In fact, the rest of his column proves this deficiency. Look what he does. First, he laments that only Israel is on perpetual trial in that it is routinely held to account by way of its policies. He goes on to cite one of the reasons why Israel is criticized which is that it is occupying somebody else's country. This is where you expect him to respond to the criticism directly and to bring into the response Israel's policies regarding the occupation which is what stands at the core of the discussion. But this is not what he does. Instead, he mentions the phony platitudes that the phony friends of Israel throw into the discussion when they try not to offend their interlocutors while trying to persuade them of the futility of the occupation. What these people say is that Israel is risking its own future in taking a stance that is corrosive to its soul instead of coming right out and saying that the occupation is illegal and unfair to the victims who suffer under it.

And so Bret Stephens responds not directly by tackling the subject of occupation but responds to the platitudes. He says that they would be convincing if they “were joined by some decent respect for Israel's mind.” Okay, you say, he dodged the real question because he will now show that the Israelis are so special, they have the right to a few things even if these things came at the expense of someone else. And you continue to read the piece until you hit on this: “Israel … labors … under the … stereotype that it is too clever to blunder … But Israel also labors under the stereotype that it is too stupid … to recognize its own interest in coming to terms with a Palestinian state.”

You're not quite sure what to make of this but you keep reading until you find that he is saying the Israelis have soured on the idea of a Palestinian state because of six reasons which are the following: One, the Palestinians have spurned a couple of offers made to them in the past. Two, the experience of withdrawal from Gaza turned out to be a bad one for Israel. Three, Iran is going nuclear. Four, Egypt is turning hostile. Five, the Palestinian leadership is still irredentist. Six, the people of Israel have voted for the continuation of the occupation. And he concludes by saying that the pesky incidents he cited early on prove that despite the fact Israel did all it could to allay the enmity of its enemies and mollify the scorn of its critics, it now finds itself in mortal danger more than ever before which is why he pleads for the unconditional support of its friends this one time only.

And so you step back to look at the six reasons he just cited and you find that he is exploiting the worn out pattern always followed by the spin doctors of the Jewish lobby. It is to use every incident they can think of -- be it old or new – as an excuse to avoid ending the occupation of Palestine, to keep stealing land from these people and to keep looting property from them. The newest of those incidents being that Egypt is now going through a transformation, you expect him to explain why this would be a reason for Israel to continue the occupation and the looting but he fails to do so. Thus, you conclude that he brought nothing new to the discussion but that he recycled what has been said before which is why his efforts will serve to perpetuate Israel's predicament, the very situation he is complaining about.

And you conclude once again that the problem with the Jewish question is not that there is something wrong with humanity; it is that there is something wrong with a philosophy of life these people have adopted. It is a philosophy that says no matter what humanity does to accommodate them, it will never be enough because they are entitled to more than the infinite, more than the absolute and more than the eternal. They are past all this and beyond all that. They are past and beyond all limits.

They are to inflict pain on others permanently and they are to suffer themselves at perpetuity. Their way of life is the scourge inflicted on the human race with no sign it will go away gracefully.

From Monkey Business To Thirsty For Blood

Alan Dershowitz used to be a paid lobbyist for Israel but I doubt that the Israelis have the money to pay him now, so I must assume that he is doing what he is doing free of charge and that he may even be donating cash to feed his soul brothers and sisters in that hapless land, especially that his donations would be recognized as charity by the IRS in America and thus be tax deductible. But Dershowitz is also a prominent lawyer in America if not a notorious one which makes it so that to study the intellectual approach he employs to make his points is to gain an insight as to what impact his conduct has on the American culture, especially the legal component of that culture.

And so I discuss an article that Dershowitz wrote under the title: “The Palestinians' U.N. Agenda” that was published in the Wall Street Journal on September 13, 2011 and that was given the subtitle: “Encouraging another Palestinian intifada should be the last thing anyone wants.” Although he is not laying out a legal case as he would do in a court of law, Dershowitz is here laying out the doctrine that goes with the thinking which underlies his legal argument much as he would do in front of a judge. The difference between this article and the ones he wrote previously on the same subject is that the previous articles were meant to impress mainly the law makers who vote in the American Congress to make American law whereas this article is meant to impress the people who vote at the UN to make international law. And this difference translates into the respect that he displays toward the UN people whom he treats as his equal in contrast to the disrespect he displays toward the American legislators whom he treats like the servants he must denigrate to keep them in their places or like the dogs he must whip to make them stop pulling on the leash that tethers them to their Jewish masters.

And so what Dershowitz does here is something that is familiar to those of us who watch the nature shows on television. Instead of exposing himself to show what a stiff erection he and Israel have by which they can diss a former American president, he begins the article this time by pulling his pants down to expose his rear end and that of Israel as a gesture of humility. Turning his rear end to the Alpha male that beat him up is what a male monkey would do to signal submission, and Dershowitz must have been watching National Geographic lately. Thus, he begins the article this way: “As Egypt and Turkey increase tensions with Israel, the Palestinian Authority seeks to isolate the Jewish state even further...” Let's all join the Jewish lawyer and weep for the little boy who is made to stand alone by the wall with a bare ass and no one willing to talk to him. But the thing is that the boy stinks like hell and no human being wants to go near him as long as he refuses to change. Of course, he can end his isolation by abandoning the habit of exposing himself on every occasion even if Dershowitz complains that to do so means the boy will have to cease being Jewish. And this, my friend, is the existential question that goes to the heart of this matter: How to create a viable Jewish tradition that is at odds with the definition of humanity and yet be accepted by it as a human endeavor?

And so the question for him is this: What can he do as a lawyer to politely tell the world that the boy should be accepted for what he is and not for the way that he looks or smells? Well, in America, Dershowitz would have picked up a megaphone and hollered the antisemitic refrain, and everyone would have fallen in line. But he is wise enough and experienced enough to refrain from doing the same thing to the rest of the world. He will not do it because he knows that it would be an insult to the intelligence of his audience, an act that will invite the boot of the international community to be impacted on his rear end whether it is left naked or not.

Thus, what Dershowitz does instead is distort history. To do this, he picks one side of the story and spins it to strengthen his argument. This approach is considered legitimate but used mainly by second rate lawyers who can think of no other way to impress a judge or a jury. Although the trick is ineffective most of the time, he employs it here in conjunction with a cerebral somersault that is so fast, you hardly notice it. What he does is recycle an old argument that the Israelis and their cohorts used to employ when they still respected their American audiences and did not treat them like servants or dogs. The argument consisted of a game of time travel by which they traveled to the time of their choosing and refused to budge from there. To play the game, Dershowitz latches on to a declaration made by the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas who said that he will tell the UN that the Palestinians have been under occupation for 63 years. No, says the Jewish lawyer, it should only be 44 years. And he goes on to say, in effect, that this is a technical error made by Abbas which, if allowed to stand, will have the effect of undoing every resolution that the world body has passed with regard to this file. He thus recommends that the application for Palestinian statehood be rejected and he goes on to build the rest of his case from there.

The difference between 63 and 44 is that 63 years ago takes you back to 1948 while 44 years ago takes you back to 1967. What happened in 1948 is that the UN gave the Jews a homeland in Palestine referred to as the Mandate which delineated a well defined border. What happened between that year and 1967 is that Israel engaged in a series of illegal activities (much as it does today) by which it doubled the size of the land it was legally entitled to. Thus, the historical fact is that a number of Palestinians have lived under an illegal occupation since 1948 to which another number has been added by 1967. Thus Abbas is correct in saying that the Palestinians have been under occupation for 63 years. And if the UN accepts this language it will only reaffirm its own Mandate of 1948 much as Abbas did it.

But what about the land that Israel has acquired illegally between 1948 and 1967? What to do there? Well, this is where the fait accompli has trumped the law. The result is that only a small minority of people now advocate the return of Israel to its legal borders of 1948, and their voices are almost never heard. Instead, the general call is that Israel must return to the borders of 1967 and even then, these people accept that minor adjustments are in order to accommodate the new fait accompli that Israel has shoved down the throat of the West Bank Palestinians.

And here is where the Dershowitz somersault comes into play. Instead of recognizing that the language of Abbas reaffirms the 1948 Mandate, he says that if the UN accepts that language, it will undo that Mandate. False. What it will do is bring into focus the fact that between 1948 and 1967 Israel has doubled the land it is legally entitled to and has added still more to it since 1967 -- to which it is adding even more with the continued expansion of the illegal settlements in the West Bank. Of course, the Jewish lawyer was not going to say any of this which would be a legal argument to push Israel back to the borders of 1948. And so, he flips the argument and says that to forbid Israel from engaging in anymore illegal activities is to undo the legal Mandate of 1948. So horrendous an argument that you can tell only a Jewish lawyer of the Dershowitz ilk could have made it.

But the fact remains that the man believes he made a breakthrough with that argument, and the proof of this is that he does what Jewish debaters typically do when they think they made a penetration; they push their luck past all the limits and try to build on what they consider to have been a good presentation. Now that he finds himself in the fanciful land of his imagination, he seeks to get someone to give Israel what belongs to someone else. To this end, he says this: “Mr. Abbas's occupation complaint also explains why he is so adamant in refusing to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.”

This is an accusation by which the lawyer for Israel paves the way for the implementation of an even greater diabolic plan. It is a plan that is pushed for by the likes of Avigdor Lieberman and Anatoly Sharansky who have been working on it for some time now. It is to expel the non-Jews who have survived the slaughter heaped on the Palestinian people by the Jewish hordes that keep pouring into occupied Palestine from abroad. The idea is that if Abbas can be made to say that Israel is a Jewish state, lawyers doing somersaults will pop up all over the places and work on justifying the massive ethnic cleansing that will result. More on this subject in a moment.

For now, look at this other accusation that Dershowitz makes. He accuses the Arab states of not “being prepared to accept the permanent existence of a state for the Jewish people in the Middle East” even though, as he laments: “Every Arab state is officially a Muslim state.” But because he is flying high in his fancy, he fails to see that what he is saying will only raise the eyebrows of the people at the UN who know that countries do not ask to be called of this religion or that one; they call themselves what they want. In fact, Abbas told the Israelis they can call themselves anything they want and this is where the matter ends with him. In addition, the people at the UN know that the Arabs have proposed to recognize Israel if and when the latter ends the occupation but the latter has refused to do so because what it wants is the land and the recognition too. So very Jewish!

Back to ethnic cleansing. Here is what he says: “Certainly some, including the Palestinian Authority, are prepared to mouth recognition of Israel as a state, so long as the so-called right of return remains for four million so-called refugees who, if they were to return in mass, would soon turn Israel into yet another Arab state.” He is not only asking the world to forgive Israel for practicing ethnic cleansing which is a crime against humanity, he is accusing “some and the Palestinian Authority” of being derelict in their duty toward Israel for not going along with the ethnic cleansing of their own people. This is beyond belief, my friend, but it is true and you can read it in the Wall Street Journal.

Dershowitz and those like him who appoint themselves to speak in the name of all Jews must know that to accuse the innocent of something they are not is bad manner; to engage in ethnic cleansing is a crime. And to combine the two in a single proposal is such a hateful conduct that many Jews want to see it stopped but for the handful of loudmouthed fanatics who accuse them of being self-hating Jews. Dershowitz and company better understand this simple truth and stop engaging in this kind of activities if they want to avoid being tried in a Nuremberg type tribunal in La Hague or somewhere else soon or posthumously.

Still, Dershowitz is not finished because having done all this, he ends the article with four paragraphs in which he accomplishes a thing or two in each. Here they are:

First, he hurls an insult and an accusation at the Palestinians and he delivers an Israeli threat to the world: “Such recognition ... would encourage the use of violence by frustrated Palestinians who will gain nothing ... but will expect much.” The idea he is propounding here is that Israel will do the right thing by rejecting the UN resolution and that the Palestinians will do the wrong thing by being frustrated at which point they will protest with their voices and bare hands, and Israel will take advantage of such development to kill as many of them as possible.

Second, he gives a stern warning to the UN and to the world: “The U.N. will be responsible for any ensuing bloodshed if it stokes the flames of violence ... by lowering the prospects for a negotiated peace.” The idea here is that the Palestinians must go to the negotiating table stripped of any clout by which they could push back against the dictates of the Israeli negotiators and ask for a better deal.

Third, he makes a false promise to the Palestinians and to the world: “...everything would then be on the table for negotiation, including the borders, the right of return, recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, the settlements and anything else the Palestinians would seek as part of a negotiated two-state peace.” The idea here is that without push back from the clout-deprived Palestinians, the Israelis will obtain a deal where each of those items will come as a Palestinian gift to them in return for nothing. How much more Jewish can Dershowitz show himself to be!

Fourth, he gives a final advice to the UN and through it to the world: “...instead of discouraging negotiations by promising recognition, the U.N. should be demanding that the Palestinian leadership and the Israeli government begin negotiations immediately without any preconditions.” The idea here is to do all of the above based on a “demand” by the UN which will then be binding on the Palestinians even though Israel has rejected every resolution that was passed against it so far and promises to reject the upcoming one since it will go against it yet again.

Alan Dershowitz started the article like a defeated monkey and ended like a hyena on the prowl. It's hopeless, my friends, it's hopeless.

Return Of The Neocons in Sheep Clothing

The tenth anniversary of 9/11 came and went. A day before that the residents of New York left the city for the weekend saying that they had it up to here with the yearly celebrations that make the event look like a triumph of the terrorists. Other Americans and foreigners came to the city as tourists to see what the fuss was all about, to buy souvenirs and to take souvenir pictures. The media had a good day making gobs of advertising money recycling old ideas without spending a penny chasing new ones or making them up. And then there was the dance of the scorpions as represented by the old conservatives and the new ones who are better known as the neocons. And as usual, the two movements entertained us as they circled each other waiting for the moment of the Rapture when each side believes it will be able to pounce on the other and devour it.

In their morbid dance, the scorpions copied the steps of each other and looked so much alike that you could not tell one from the other most of the time. In fact, you could even say that the neocons have returned after a hiatus of nearly three years in a form so well disguised that they blended not only with the other conservatives but with the liberals too. And Joseph Lieberman who can defy Euclidean geometry by sitting on three sides of a two-sided fence ran around explaining in conservative, independent and liberal fashions how the continuation of the war against the Arabs and the Muslims that ruined America in the first place can now save America and pull it from the financial hole where he and his neocon pals buried it.

And war is what unites the two conservatives. Both want to continue America's wars abroad and they use the arguments of each other to make their points. To this end, you find an article written by Michael Gerson under the title: “The Ugly gash of 9/11” published in the Washington Post on September 8, 2011. Gerson is a mild mannered man who says he is not of the neocons but you can hardly tell that because he thinks and writes like them. He describes the Bush Doctrine in the article and holds it as the perfect response to the events of 9/11. He then takes pride in saying that the doctrine was adopted by the Obama Administration and that it has worked so well it was vindicated by the events. Well, let me say that I disagree on both counts and here is why. To explain the point he makes on the Obama response, Gerson says this: “Under the direction of the president [Obama], thousands of Predator and Reaper unmanned aircraft conduct targeted killings in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.” But the fact is that before being elected, candidate Obama promised during the presidential campaign to do what Bush was not doing which was to go after the terrorists in a hot pursuit wherever he will find them, a stance for which he was severely criticized. The fact is that Obama did not imitate Bush; he devised a contrary policy and followed it.

As to the claim that the Bush Doctrine was vindicated by events, Gerson's assertion that we can relax now because Bush found the right formula to save the world, and that Obama is following it is what concerns me because I do not see it as: “the admirable achievement of two presidents,” which is the way that Gerson put it. In my view, this attitude has the potential to lead to what he describes as follows: “Given advances in technology, future attacks could be worse.” And so when someone makes two such statements in the same article, he shows that he does not realize what it is that gives America its ugly look and why bad things can happen again even though the terrorists possess no inherent strength that is formidable enough to make them succeed or even remain as a force that is worthy of mention. In my view, America has been the one to nurture and to amplify what little strength the current terrorists had at the start. It did so with its own responses and with the neocon verbiage that accompanied those responses. Indeed, what happened to the dozens of terrorist organizations that came and went over the decades could have happened to the current organization but for the domestic political scene in America that refused to let go of this foreign matter.

And here is how things work out according to Gerson's own account of the historical events. It looks from his description that W. Bush began to formulate his doctrine shortly after September 11, 2001. He recalls that in the State of the Union address of 2002, Bush argued the following: “...the rule of law, respect for women, equal justice and religious tolerance ... would be the basis for reform in Arab nations.” Also in 2002, W. Bush is reported to have noticed that: “Poverty, weak institutions and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels within their borders.” He therefore argued for more international development to counter all this.

Well, let me say the following in response, something I do as politely as I can and in all respect. Go to an Arab or a Muslim country and say to the people that you have come to show them how to run their affairs because they know not how to do this, and there will be not one citizen -- man or woman, Christian or Muslim, young or old who is not in jail or out of a mental institution -- that will not want to kick you in the ass and throw you out of the country. In fact, the most that the Americans were able to do in this regard is that they took advantage of their military occupation of Iraq to shove down the throat of the Iraqis the “liberation” of the women there. And the result has been that the cause of women has regressed so much that Iraqi women would vote in droves to hang the American soldiers of occupation if given the chance.

Also the Americans took advantage of the confusion that has accompanied the recent revolution in Egypt to illegally hand out money to a few individuals and organizations behind the back of the provincial government there. The result has been that the Americans were told politely by that government never to do so again and got assurances to this effect. But when the people (of Tahrir Square and others) learned about the incident, they made it clear that if such thing happens again, they will have no compunction kicking the ass of the American ambassador and kicking him or her out of the country. To the Arabs, to the Muslims and now to the whole world, the American system of governance is viewed with as much respect as the Simpson trial. The fact is that America has become a joke in the eyes of the world and it is getting more laughable by the day. Go and teach these people what, America? Teach them how to have a political gridlock? To engineer a financial meltdown? To collapse the housing market? To invite a little puke like Netanyahu to come and urinate on your rug in full view of the cameras? To run a presidential campaign where the candidates take turn to show how intimately they would kiss the ass of a Jew? Come on America, get serious!

And this is where an old novel comes to mind. It was written by Eugene Burdick and William Lederer in the late Nineteen Fifties and had the title “The Ugly American.” It happened that even before the start of the Vietnam War these two authors had gathered enough insight and had seen enough disturbing information related to the comportment of American officials sent to Asia that Burdick and Lederer felt compelled to write that novel. In it, they draw attention to a reality that had escaped the notice of the government which sent these people abroad to represent it and represent America. Then came the Vietnam War and a film was made by that title to point out the reasons why America was failing to win the hearts and minds of the people on whose behalf it claimed to be fighting. The American was ugly then because of his comportment and he is ugly today for the same reason not because of a gash in the ground or a scar made by war.

And this is why I worry not about the inherent strength of the terrorists which I see as minimal but because of the current comportment of America which is shaped by the neocons and their buddies, the old conservatives. If America continues to show its ugly face to the world, the work of the terrorists could metamorphose and become something different from what it is now; something that cannot be predicted at this time. And given that science and technology keep advancing, we cannot tell what capabilities the weapons of the future will have or how they will be used. The way that the future will be shaped, therefore, will depend on America's behavior. And this is where I see that even well meaning people like Michael Gerson make a big mistake by consistently diagnosing the situation the same old way and coming to the same old conclusions.

And while America's attitude now makes the Americans look ugly to most foreigners the way they looked to the Asians half a century ago, something more odious has been added to the mix. It is the elephant in the room which is the foreign policy that America has franchised to the Jewish groups, foremost among these the lobby calling itself AIPAC whose purpose is to work for the glory of the little fart that is Israel at the expense of everyone and everything else. It is bad enough to think of yourself as having a messianic mission you must spread around the world to save it when you're the one that needs to be saved, it is another thing to be seen ridden by the little fart that keeps telling you how to rampage through a world that no longer stands your looks or stands the smell of your rider. To be governed by AIPAC makes you look ugly and smell awful, America!

And try as he may to hide what shapes his view of the world and of history, Michael Gerson could not hide the one reality that never leaves those of the Washington Beltway. They all believe that the spin they hear is more true than the truth they see. Show them someone kill another and whisper in their ear he was only feeding him bullets and they will disbelieve what they see to accept your spin. Here is an example of this. Gerson writes: “...the realist practice of supporting favorable autocrats in the Middle East and North Africa seems hopelessly naive … Obama has been a reluctant, foot-dragging convert … But he is a convert nonetheless.” The fact is that what was happening in that part of the world which he describes as being a “combined dictatorial rule of 95 years” has been happening not under Obama who had been in office for only two years when the Arab Spring erupted but under several presidents, many of whom were Republicans and one of those being W. Bush. As can be seen, Gerson does not believe what he saw because the Jewish propaganda machine whispered something different in his ear. This is what adds to the ugliness of America.

As you continue to read the article, Gerson hits you with a sentence that baffles you at first until you realize it is a preamble to something big. Here is the sentence: “Citizen participation always carries the risk of poor choices by citizens.” This is from someone who belongs to a group that used to say the democratic participation of citizens leads to infallible choices. So then, what happened that changed all this? Well, what happened was that an election was held in Palestine where Hamas won fair and square. The Israelis and their Jewish and non-Jewish cohorts in America who used to push the idea that the world will be safe when America uses its military power to “democratize” the Muslim world especially the “Arab core”, quickly changed their stance and sang the new tune that was taught to them by the AIPAC people. They began to sing: “Oh yes, yes this is true but you see, elections have consequences.” Thus, where there was never a consequence when the Israelis elected a blood thirsty government, there are now consequences because Hamas was elected and it is disliked by Israel and its cohorts in America. You see, my friend, the truth to these people as well as historical events and opinions are like a windbag; they gyrate in response to the direction of the wind. Nothing is sacred and everything is malleable enough to fit the occasion.

Which tells you what the Gerson preamble was all about. It was to prepare you for the day when the same people will again call for America's military intervention in the Arab and Muslim countries under the command of AIPAC. And to deny you the possibility of believing the truth you will see, Gerson tries to spin something that should be as hard to spin as the Rock of Gibraltar. To this futile end, he whispers the following in your ear: “Criticism of the Bush Doctrine was always based on a distortion – that it was somehow generated by neoconservative ideology. But Bush did not come out of a neoconservative foreign policy tradition.” Well, given that neocon ideology is euphemism for Jewish control, Gerson tries hard to push you away from the truth into believing this distortion: “Each element of the doctrine was a response to … the need to protect Americans...” And to make the pill easy to swallow, he tries to bribe the Obama supporters by telling them this: “Bush was not an ideological radical, just as Obama is not an ideological turncoat,” which is the equivalent of: I'm okay Jack and so are you.

But he still wants to intimidate the realists (as he calls them) before ending his dissertation and so he hits them with this: “They [the realists] placed their bet in favor of a permanent serfdom in the Middle East and now seem disappointed by historical miracles.” He is saying this at a time when the Iraqis are telling America: “Look what you have done to us, you ugly Americans. You robbed us of the chance to do for ourselves what everyone in the world did for themselves, including you who had your own revolution and the Arabs who had theirs. Now they have a history to be proud of, and we can envy them but not emulate them. Damn you, Americans and damn the Jews who told you to do this to us.”

And to make sure you understand what it is that he wants to accomplish, he ends with a paragraph that contains this: “On Sept. 12, 2001, I entered the White House complex through … [an] expanded security perimeter … Since those days, America has expanded its security perimeter beyond Constitution Avenue to rural Yemen and Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Here you see that the old neocon dream of imposing on the world a Pax Americana that will be controlled by AIPAC is rearing its head again. And there is nothing more Jewish than flogging a lost cause.

Let me tell you something, Michael Gerson. You have the essential qualities to be a winner but for this to happen, you must abandon the ruinous enterprise you're on now because America will never again intimidate as much as a fly. Get off this road and think of ways to re-industrialize America by getting it to produce what the people buy today not what the government believes they ought to be buying tomorrow. Do this and you will be a true Conservative instead of being a lackey of AIPAC.

The Ups And Downs Of Class Warfare

Election fever is gathering momentum in America and the rhetoric among the contenders is beginning to get heated. In the melee that accompanies the skirmishes, a subject that remained dormant for decades is now rearing its head. It is the subject of wealth distribution which everywhere in the world means to discuss the social contract but not in America where it means to force a socialist contract on the nation. Thus, if someone questions the way that wealth is distributed in America, they open themselves to the charge that they seek to start a class warfare in the style of the European socialists.

The reason why this subject has gained importance these days is that the business cycle is now going through a nasty downturn having come close to a collapse. Thus, at a time when the rich were getting richer and the poor poorer, the financial near meltdown that hit America and the world widened the gap still further between the two classes. What could have been an ordinary business cycle turned out to be an exaggerated one and the people who got hurt the most began to feel that the system was manipulated by those who benefited from the difficulties. The poor people were the first to develop this feeling but the sense that foul play was involved spread to the middle class where unemployment shot up to a high level and refused to come down. As a result, the subject of how the wealth of America is distributed among its people came up in the discussions, and all the related subjects were dragged into the debate.

Because perspective is often lost in America during the presidential campaigns, it is a good thing to keep bringing things back into perspective lest the debate drift into the proverbial “Twilight Zone” of absurdity. To this end, we should all begin by admitting that the part of the business cycle we do not like is the downturn because it is a time when we stand to lose our job and stand to experience a disruption in our life. And if the misfortune does not happen to us, we know it can happen to someone close to us. This is not to say that we dislike taking time off from work; we do so every time we take a vacation to relax and to savor the leisure and the fun. The difference between losing a job and taking a vacation, however, is that the first is forced on us while the second is planned by us. Moreover, losing a job opens the door to uncertainty as to what the future may hold while taking a vacation happens in the knowledge that we have a job to return to, a means to earn the money we used to and a way to resume the life we are accustomed to. What this says in the final analysis is that financial security is what determines our attitude toward the business cycle.

These considerations lead us to pose the question as to whether or not some people view the business cycle not as a disruptor of life but an opportunity to enhance their own financial security. The answer to this question is yes, there are such people; and this makes it so that the matter can be summarized this way: The misery of one is the good luck of the other. The fact is that there are people who not only take full advantage of this reality; they live exclusively by it. To see this, we take a look at one of the markets upon which the economy rests. A good example would be the stock market because it is one that is familiar to most people. This market goes through up and down cycles more frequently than any other; and it is a place where the people who know how to make things work for them can buy low and sell high in the same day thus make a quick profit.

It can be said that such people buy cheaply the wretched misery of one then turn around and sell it as the object of exuberance to someone else at an inflated price. And this phenomenon has its consequence; it opens the door for other people to exploit the situation further still and thus start the slide on a slippery slope that can take a single stock down the abyss or take the entire market down there. These people are the regular short-sellers and their more redoubtable buddies, the naked short-sellers. Add to this the fact that technology has made it possible to do in micro-seconds what used to take days to complete and you have what is called the high frequency traders. And these people -- together with their machines and the financial instruments called derivatives -- are the plague that has mortally infested the marketplaces of today.

To get an idea what the short-sellers do, imagine the analogy of a block of buildings. These would be 5 buildings each containing 200 condominium apartments for a total of 1000 apartments. In a block this size you will find that at least 2 apartments are put up for sale every month. This is what happens in our fictitious example until an outfit that specializes at making a quick profit appears on the scene. The outfit “borrows” a handful of apartments from their owners and puts up a cash collateral equal to the going price. The owners do not vacate the apartments but stay in them and get back full ownership after a while plus a commission to compensate them for their troubles. In the meantime, the borrowing outfit puts the apartments for sale at a lower price than the going rate.

This has the effect of forcing the other dwellers of the block who need to sell now to do so at the lower price. Seeing the prices drop and not knowing why, other dwellers who had no intention of selling at this time get scared and sell at the lower price. More people follow suit and sell at prices that keep going lower and lower with each new transaction. A full blown panic develops; it triggers a domino effect and accelerates the race to the bottom. The panic continues until most of the apartments are sold at a fire sale price where the ultimate buyer would be the quick buck outfit that started the whole thing. Eventually, the selling stops when there are no more apartments to sell. After a pause, the prices start to rise again until they reach their old levels. This is when the outfit sells the apartments and generates a fantastic profit for the quick buck artists that own it. It then repeats the cycle using the same block of buildings or using another block. The net effect of this sort of business is that wealth is transferred from the people who spent a lifetime earning it to the people who learned to play a dirty game and play it with a level of callousness that can only be described as savage.

And get this, dear reader, we have not even descended far down the slippery slope yet. So let us go there and see what the naked short-sellers do. These people wear clothes alright -- even a three-piece suit and a tie -- but they do not bother to borrow an apartment or two. Instead, they start the ball rolling by advertising that they have apartments for sale at prices lower than the going rate. This is how they start the race to the bottom where the same scenario unfolds. And they manage to make enough dough to paper over their moral nakedness as they laugh their way to the bank. So much for the activities of the short-sellers -- naked and otherwise. Below these people on the ladder of the slippery slope of morality sit the rumor mongers whose trick of the trade is to start the selling panic by putting out false stories. For example, they may say: It has just been discovered that the block of buildings was erected on top of an old chemical site and that it will soon be condemned. In fact, the peddling of rumors is something that happens all the time on the “street” of the stock markets where the mongers make a huge profit at the expense of those who listen to them and sell in a panic.

Worse than the rumor mongers and lower on the slope of morality sit the people who would set fire to one of the apartments. The equivalent of this act among the stock market traders would be to short the stock of say, a pharmaceutical company then take a walk to a nearby pharmacy where they inject a poison into one of the company's products as it sits on the shelf. In fact, something like this happened a few times before where the discovery of the poison triggered a panic selling of the company's stock. It is at this point that the perpetrators buy back at a cheap price the stock they did not have a while ago but sold at a high price. And these people make a huge profit at the expense of everyone else.

Let us now consider the following. A fundamental principle of capitalism is that every participant in the marketplace should have access to accurate information. Therefore it stands to reason that the people who violate this principle by putting out false information and take advantage of the resulting situation as well as the people in politics and the media who defend them are the ones who exhibit anti-capitalist tendencies. They are the people who not only advocate class warfare with words but do it with their deeds. Whether or not they mean it, these people are the ones who slowly transform North America into a welfare nanny state. By contrast, the people who complain about such practices and seek to have them wrung out of the system are the authentic law and order advocates of true capitalism. And yet, if you follow the debates, you find that the perpetrators are the ones who accuse the innocent of what they themselves perpetrate. It is an upside down world if you can imagine one in the Twilight Zone of politics and the media where Karl Marx is calling Milton Friedman a socialist nanny.

Still, we should not despair when we see all that mischief. The fact is that the world continues to function because while some people live and prosper by the bad cycles, most people and most businesses prefer to see an economy that grows at a steady and predictable pace. These people can live with the normal business cycle because it is usually of mild volatility and they have adapted to it. What they dread is the cycle that is triggered artificially because it is often violent and they have no means to defend against it. These are the entrepreneurs who know how to create wealth and thus lead the good life by the work they do. Opposed to them are the speculators who possess no skill to create wealth but know how to amass the wealth that is created by others. They have the right to make a buck and feed their families but not the right to go on a rampage and create the sort of chaos that allows them to amass more than their fair share. And yet, when you question these people about the methods by which they get rich, they cry foul and object at being questioned at all. What they like to do instead is pretend to be members of the enterprising class entitled to the respect that is accorded to the true entrepreneurs when in reality they are nothing but opportunistic scavengers.

Thus, when we speak of a war between two classes of people we should not mean the class of the deserving rich versus the class of the undeserving poor, we should mean the class of the rich and the poor on one side versus the class of the undeserving hungry-to-get-rich-quick characters on the other side. And the perspective we should keep in mind at all time is that of the class of the true entrepreneurs who are motivated by the thrill and the adventure that accompany the act of creating something new. These people start their own ventures or they invest in the venture of someone else by buying equity in their start-ups. For this to work, the entrepreneurs need a steady economy that will give them certainty. The thing they dread is the volatile situation that creates uncertainty and gets in the way of developing what they start.

But creating volatility and the uncertainty that goes with it are the things that the class of speculators lives by. These people realize that their activities may put some entrepreneurs out of business but they do not worry about killing the goose that lays the golden egg because they know that more geese will come along and lay more eggs which they will collect and enjoy till they get their hands on the geese that laid them and kill them too. And while it may be argued that the speculators work to gain financial security like everyone else – a legitimate pursuit in itself -- it cannot be shown that the excessive greed that accompanies some of their transactions is legitimate business. Such activities must be curtailed with tough regulations armed with powerful teeth.

The first thing we do, therefore, is acknowledge that no human enterprise is ever going to be perfect. Thus, no economic system that we can devise will be immune from the weaknesses that will cause it to go bad at times. What this means is that there will always be deficiencies in the system, and the speculators will try to take advantage of them. The trouble is that these people and their apologists in politics and the media tend to blame the government for giving them the opportunity to do so. This may be true at times, and a constructive criticism is in order when such thing happens. But the apologists cannot tell the difference between the creative entrepreneurs who create the wealth of the nation and the hungry speculators who amass some of it by devious means. And so they view everyone as being a legitimate capitalist which is their big mistake. On top of that you have the confused politicians who repeat the mistake while running for office and if elected, find themselves compelled to turn the mistakes into the laws of the land.

What can be said about the habit of blaming the activities of the speculators on a government that failed to create the perfect economic system is that it sounds like the little hooligans and their parents who blame you for the crash that the little ones caused when they stole your car because you did not equip the car with anti-theft features above the ability of the little ones to defeat. This, my friend, is when you wish you could jail the little ones and their parents too.

And if during an election campaign a politician speaks of class warfare, he or she better realize which class makes the car and which steals it. Otherwise the electorate will see them not as the responsible legislators that should be elected to office but the trivial parents of the speculating little hooligans, all of whom deserving to be thrown in jail.