On January 21, 2013, President Obama of the United States of America
gave his inauguration speech in which he described a vision he formulated for
the future of the country. The next day, the Wall Street Journal – which stands
as the current megaphone for the alien movement known as World Jewry –
published a piece in which it inadvertently exposed the sort of fake arguments
and fake approaches it will employ to try and thwart the President's vision.
These would be the same arguments and the same approaches that Rupert Murdoch,
the majority owner of the Journal, has been employing for a long time now.
The President's speech is made of something like 20
paragraphs each of which is full of ideas worth reading and worth mulling over.
But for the purpose of this discussion, however, two paragraphs stand out
because they contain the ideas that hint at the ground on which the upcoming
battles will be fought.
The abridged version of one paragraph reads as follows: “We
believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We
reject the belief that America
must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and
investing in the generation that will build its future. For, we remember the
lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of
a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. The commitments we make to each
other – through Medicare, and Medicate, and social security – these things do
not sap our initiative; they strengthen us.”
What this set of ideas says is that America must
now face the reality that its reach can no longer be allowed to exceeding its
grasp. This is because the memory of the choices that poor people were forced
to make in their twilight years, and the choices that parents with a disabled
child were forced to endure are no longer acceptable. There is now a better set
of choices to make, says the President, and the abridged version of the
paragraph describing these choices reads as follows:
“We believe that security and peace do not require perpetual
war. Our men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are
unmatched. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we lost, know too well
the price that is paid for liberty. [Such] knowledge will keep us vigilant. But
we are also heirs to those who won the peace, who turned enemies into friends,
and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.”
Thus, what the President says is that the big choice to make
at this time is not between having to provide for the current generation or
having to provide for future generations; it is to provide for all the
generations by returning to the role that America used to play so well in the
past. It made friends out of former enemies, and pared down its military after
each victory rather than spark a useless war here and there the way that it did
in more recent times to satisfy an approach called Pax Americana. This is what
sapped the country's human resources and eroded its economic potential; an
approach that can no longer be sustained.
Opposed to the President's vision are the advocates of Pax
Americana. They are the characters who run World Jewry, and who operate in America under
the banner of the Neocons. Their vision for America and for the world is
spelled out in a piece of writing that comes this time under the signature of
Bret Stephens, a columnist at the Wall Street Journal, and one of its editors.
The column is titled: “Obama's You're-On-Your-Own World” and has the subtitle: “George
McGovern wanted America
to 'Come Home.' In Obama's second term, he may just get his wish.”
The most striking point made by Stephens is this: “Americans
need to think carefully about what the retreat from Pax Americana will mean.”
He articulates this point of view by standing on two pillars. One is history;
the other economics. I have always taken the view that Jews are incapable of
talking history because all that they are capable of doing in this field is
mutilate history beyond recognition. Stephens gives me no reason to change my
mind, hence I shall not take up the historical argument he is advancing.
As to economics, even though the Journal employs people who
know their stuff, Stephens himself is illiterate when it comes to math and to
economics. Thus, I must assume that the arguments he is presenting in this
column are not his own but those of his comrades.
He mentions – on their behalf – figures without saying how
they were produced. However, by doing a little bit of forensic work on them, we
can expose the principles that went into their production. In turn, these
principles will unveil a philosophy that says: It is perfectly acceptable to
let the American people live in misery now and in the future because the aim is
to maintain this nation in a perpetual state of war whether it manages in the
end to achieve Pax Americana or not.
Stephens says at the start of his column that the United States has “haggle[d] with France over the
federal equivalent of a $2.15 check.” You ask: Where did this figure come from?
And he says that France
asked America
for logistical support consisting of 30 flights that would cost 600,000 dollars
each. You do the math and find that the operation would cost the American
taxpayers 18 million dollars. No chicken feed, you say, which is probably why
his comrades did not provide that figure. Instead, they spoke of a federal
equivalent of 2.15 dollars.
But where did that last figure come from? Well, this is the
point where things get complicated because these people don't tell you what
assumptions they made while doing the math. All that can be said is that the
ratio between the little more than 10 billion dollars they say the government
spends each and every day, and the 18 million dollars that the taxpayers of America
would have had to fork out is approximately 560.
Now, if this ratio is supposed to mirror the ratio between
the spending powers of the federal government and the spending powers of the
citizen they have in mind (an average citizen or not), it means that their man
spends each and every day 560 times 2.15 dollars, which comes to 1204 dollars.
Multiply this number by 365, and you get the value of 440 thousand dollars that
the citizen they have in mind is supposed to spend in a year. And that's
certainly no average citizen in anyone's book.
This is complicated stuff, and there is a reason why they
make it so. It is that they always seek to confuse the people. In fact, that's
not the only thing they do to confuse people. When you look closely at the
totality of their daily arguments, you'll find that they use two kinds of
measurements. Think of one measurement as being a yardstick that is a foot
long, and think of the other measurement as being a yardstick that is a mile
long.
When these people speak of their side getting something,
they say, for example, we only got a tenth of a mile. When they speak of the
other side getting something, they say he got a whopping five hundred feet of
that something. But you know what? Contrary to the psychological impact that
such figures have on us, five hundred feet are less than a tenth of a mile. By
the same token, it is more convenient for the Murdoch people to speak of 2.15
dollars than to speak of 440 000 dollars. It's psychology, you see.
But why do they go through all that? What does it mean to
them in the final analysis? It means that the neocons will use every trick in
the book to deceive the population so as to keep America in a perpetual state of war
and serve their religious purposes which are to provoke Armageddon, and fulfill
a prophecy that has motivated them for thousands of years. They hope to
establish a Pax Americana which, for now at least, will serve as proxy for what
they ultimately aim to accomplish – the establishment of Pax Judaica.
And they consider the American people to be the suckers on
whose shoulders they will climb to realize their ancient prophecy, even if it
means that America
must go broke in the process, and its people must live in misery for ever and
ever.
These are the Murdoch ideas, principles and approaches and –
come hell or high water – they will be pitted every inch of the way against the
vision that the President has for America .