The Insanity in Returning to a MAD World

If you believe that an insane individual could not threaten the human race with annihilation unless he held a high position such as the one that was occupied by Hitler, you should think again – and here is why. A man named Jack David who is now a fellow at the Hudson Institute was once a member of the George W. Bush administration in charge of negotiating policy and combating weapons of mass destruction.

For someone to be in that position and hold the views that he is revealing only now, should send the chill down your spine and everyone else's. For, the man may not have had his finger on the nuclear button but he came close to that. He may also have looked saintly and may have acted normally but he was insane all along.

You get a sense of all that when you read: “Obama's Nuclear-Zero Dream,” an article in which Jack David reveals a few things about himself, and what he believes would be good for America and the human race. The article also came under the subtitle: “His idea that we will be safer with fewer nuclear weapons is, quite simply, absurd” and was published on June 29, 2013 in National Review Online. What Jack David is complaining about is that “President Obama proposed that the U.S. and Russia reduce their strategic nuclear warheads by one-third.” David calls that proposal pure fantasy and dangerous. In case you forgot, this man was in charge of combating weapons of mass destruction.

So you look to his argument to see how he explains that point of view, and you are astounded by the tortuous nature of his logic. Without saying it, he bases his argument on the theory of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) that used to prevail during the Cold War. It was argued then that because NATO and the Warsaw Pact had the capacity to absorb a first nuclear strike and then retaliate, neither of the two adversaries launched a war against the other. This may or may not have been a factor for the fact that a nuclear exchange did not occur, but we cannot be certain because we can never give a definite answer to the question: What if?

In fact, there is another plausible reason why a Third World War did not occur. It is that the world had lived through two great wars in a span of time that was shorter than a generation. The result has been that 16 million people died in the first war, and up to 75 million in the second. And the question was asked: With or without nuclear weapons, how many will die if a third war erupted? The irony is that Jack David uses this example to make his point. Because he did not admit he borrowed the logic of the Cold War, he did not have to mention that the situation was defused due to the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties (SALT) that were negotiated and signed at the time. And so, he calls his point of view a paradox then attacks President Obama's point of view.

He calls the President's notion an absurdity and cites two reasons for that. They are that man already knows how to make nuclear weapons, and that some men are willing to use them to gain advantage over other men. Well, that's what the situation was like during the cold war. In fact, America had already used the bomb twice by that time. But the choice facing man was to either have the SALT talks and reduce the threat of a nuclear exchange or escalate by engaging in a never ending arms race. President Richard Nixon, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and President Ronald Reagan chose the SALT route; now Jack David wants to turn the clock back and push the world into a new arms race.

Again, Jack David uses a mutilated form of logic to make his point. Without saying that Russia cheated on the treaties it signed – which it did not – he uses the double-talk of mixing apples and oranges to make it sound like it did. He says that America reduced its strategic weapons but that Russia increased its tactical weapons. Well, that was in the provisions of the agreements all along because both sides needed to recalibrate their forces given that China – which is Russia's neighbor – was now a rising nuclear power.

With this in mind, Jack David brings into the discussion the fact that Iran and North Korea are two potentially rising nuclear powers, and argues not that steps be taken to limit the proliferation of these weapons but that the arms race be escalated. And he does this in a way that is so insulting to the intelligence of the reader; you can only conclude that the man is insane. He says this: “Should the U.S. wish to take action regarding Syria ... or Japan that is not to the liking of Russia or China … can there be any doubt that those countries could be tempted to consider nuclear blackmail as a means of persuading the U.S. not to act?”

By imagining that absurd scenario, the man dismisses off hand the notion that the choice is between returning to the Cold War era where the arms race continues, or moving forward into the SALT era where escalation is brought under control, and proliferation is eliminated. In fact, he indicates what his choice would be by the manner with which he ends his presentation.

He basically says that America will be safer in a world that is full of nuclear weapons than a world which is free of them. He goes on to say, this would be true provided that America has a stockpile of weapons large enough to scare everyone else, even if America must also be scared by everyone else's stockpile.

His is a MAD world indeed because the man is insane.

Ethnic Cleansing by another Name

To complain about a Jew who makes a racist comment is like complaining about a dwarf who threatens to beat a sumo wrestler to a pulp; you take it like a joke and move on. Well, that's what you do unless the activities of the Jew persist, mix with other matters, mutate and transform into something more dangerous.

That's the analogy which comes to mind when you read the Jeff Jacoby column published in the Boston Globe on June 26, 2013 under the title: “The myth of the inevitable Jewish minority in Israel.” At first you want to dismiss the whole thing as inconsequential but after a moment of reflection, you come to the conclusion that there is more to this thing than meets the eye.

You discover that Jacoby wrote the article in response to the warning that was sounded by the American Secretary of State John Kerry to the effect that unless the Jews end their savage occupation of Palestine, what they now call Israel will cease to be populated by a majority of Jews. As a dispassionate observer, you already see the pornography that is inherent in trying to goad someone to cease committing a crime that has gone on for three generations not because it is the wrong thing to maintain but because if they did not end the occupation, their society will cease to be ethnically pure.

Just imagine what the reaction would be around the world if the British minister of foreign affairs had advised the Yankee Americans to let a number of Southern states separate and become the Nation of Islam that some people have been calling for because if the Yanks did not do so, America as a nation will cease to be populated by a majority of Judeo-Christians.

And yet, this is the current reality when it comes to matters concerning the self-proclaimed Jewish leaders who whipped up a new ethnicity from a religion that has vanished centuries ago. They set out to create a homeland for their concoction in the land of Palestine where they have been trying to ethnic cleans the territories using all the help they can get from an American congress of charlatans and imbeciles.

But now that the creature the Americans nurtured to play with at election time has gone through a Frankenstein sort of transformation, and is threatening the interests of America worldwide, the Americans find themselves powerless to rein in what has become an out of control monster. All they can do now is goad it to stop doing what it is doing because if it did not, it will end up hurting itself.

How pathetic would this sound if you were a Third World power! But when you are a superpower and the world gets to see that's all you can do to rein in what you have yourself created, the message goes out to the effect that the smallest of powers can now urinate all over you. Thus, you know now, how it is that the world has become dismissive of America. The culprit is not the American Left or Right; it is World Jewry working in consort with Israel and the American Jewish lobby.

With all this in the background, you want to know: How did Israel and her supporters react to Kerry's goading? And you find the answer in the Jeff Jacoby column. No, he is saying to Kerry's call because this is an old refrain that proved to be erroneous. He explains that Israel need not end the occupation or sue for peace with the Palestinians because the Jews of Israel will never be overwhelmed by a high Arab birthrate.

Jacoby reprises an argument that was made by what he says was a former Israeli diplomat named Yoram Ettinger. He admits the argument defies longstanding conventional wisdom, but does not tell what Ettinger's credentials are in this field. He believes Ettinger, however, and he wants us to believe him too. Okay, we may do that but we need to see if the argument makes sense. So, he begins the argument by comparing the situation now against what it was in 1960 when the “demographic challenge seemed plausible.”

What happened between then and now? Well, what happened was that a “Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics began its first census in the West bank and Gaza in 1997.” Eight years later, in 2005, it predicted that Jews would be a minority in historic Palestine by 2010. Jacoby goes on to say that the Bureau now says the tipping point will come by 2020. And he quickly adds: “Don't count on it.”

To explain that last part, Jacoby does not go directly to the numbers that count. Instead he unleashes what may be called a psychological artillery barrage against the reader. To this end, he quotes all sorts of irrelevant numbers, comparing Palestinian women against Arab women, and Israeli women against other non-Arab women. This is a well known Jewish contortion of logic that has a mathematical analogy. It is like saying because 3 do not equal 8, and because 5 do not equal 11, therefore 3 may or may not equal 11. Having thus confused the readers and softened their logical abilities, Jacoby now hits with the reality he cannot deny which is that the fertility of Palestinian women is still higher than that of Jewish women.

He stays on the train of the same contorted logic to throw another set of inconsequential numbers at the reader. This time, he says that the number of Jewish births in Israel went from 80,000 a year to 130,000 while that of the Israeli Arabs remained steady at 35,000 to 40,000. But the debate is about the effect of the occupation which now encompasses the West Bank of the Jordan River. Thus, the set of numbers he gives this time is as useless as a Jewish argument can get. The little useful use it may have is in the fact that it reminds us what happened in 2005. This was the year that Israel was kicked out of Gaza, leaving behind a population of 1.6 million Palestinians. And this is why the tipping point was moved from 2010 to 2020.

Thus, what Israel can do now is move the date even further away by kicking itself out of all Palestinian territories. And this is what Secretary of State John Kerry was saying in the first place.

Hanson Predicts 3 more Centuries of Americana

In a refreshing change of style in the way that he describes history, Victor Davis Hanson has published a remarkable piece in which he compares the current condition of the United States of America with the way that the Roman Empire looked and felt two centuries into the Christian era. He wrote: “The Glue Holding America Together,” an article which also has the subtitle: “As it fragments into various camps, the country is being held together by a common popular culture.” The piece was published on July 27, 2013 in National Review Online.

Hanson begins with the apparently depressing thought that: “By A.D. 200, the Roman Republic was a distant memory” but holds up the hope that there may be a light at the end of the tunnel with this encouraging sign: “Yet Rome endured as a global power for three more centuries,” and then asks: “What held it together?” You see immediately from this that his obsession is not what is happening to the country now; his main preoccupation being that the country hold together for as long as possible to endure as a global power.

And he answers his own question by attributing the responsibility of holding Rome together to “a stubborn common popular culture and the prosperity of Mediterranean-wide standardization.” To expand on this, he says two things, one being a little bizarre and the other being incomplete. First, the bizarre. Egypt being a Province of the Roman Empire, he says that the Egyptians, among others, assumed that plentiful grain was available – which presumably kept them content and willing to remain part of the Empire. Hey, Mr. Historian of the classical era, the Egyptians did not have to assume this, Egypt was the breadbasket of the Empire and the source of its prosperity – and the Egyptians knew it.

As to the part that is not very convincing, Hanson makes the point that as long as the pirates and the thieves were cleared from the sea and the streets, and as long as commerce progressed normally, people did not care how lawless or unhinged the Roman officials and emperors were. But what is not convincing about this, is the explanation he gives as to how Rome endured as a global power even after the subjects lost respect for those who governed them.

Likewise, he goes on to say: “Few Americans worry that our present leaders have lied to or misled Congress … without consequences.” Hey, Mr. Citizen of America, the Congress is the laughing stock of the American people as much as it is of the world. Ever since Oliver North waved his proverbial middle finger at the Congress, the nation and the world began to understand that America was governed by men and women of the circus who can be bought, sold and trained the way that elephants and jackasses are bought, sold and trained to perform funny acts and make meaningless noises.

Hanson now draws up a long list of woes he says are plaguing America then asks: “Why is the United States not experiencing something like [what goes on] in Turkey, Brazil, Mexico, Syria, Russia, China, Egypt and Europe?” He answers the question like this: “half of America and many of its institutions operate as they always have.” He also says that most government functionaries are not corrupt, and when it comes to blue collar workers and farmers, the lies in Washington are but an abstraction to them. He gives a few examples of what passes for normal life in America then makes this observation: “Like diverse citizens of imperial Rome, we are united in some fashion by shared popular tastes and mass consumerism.”

To sum up the analogy, he renders his own version of the old saying to the effect that Rome quieted the people by providing them with bread and circus. The modern version being that fast food is cheap and tasty, and that video games and reality-TV shows are available. All of which “for now is preferable to rioting and revolt,” he says.

And so, with an apparent sigh of relief, he concludes that “like Rome, America can coast for a long time on the fumes of its political heritage.” How long is that? Three more centuries as a global power? Don't tell it to the Asians.

But maybe it will, who knows? In any case, Victor, what about the thousand or so who are murdered in America each month? And what about the millions who languish in prison? Where do these realities fit into your image of America?

The Democratic Subversion of the Law

Dennis B. Ross is here again writing about Iran to urge America to do not what is good for America but what is good for Israel. He published his latest article: “Talk to Iran's New President. Warily” in the New York Times on June 26, 2013. However meaningful or meaningless his thesis may be, it is here because of one reason only; the fact that America's process of making laws has been subverted by the Jewish organizations. There now exists a shameful list of them that needs to be rescinded before America can again occupy its rightful place in the world and regain its influence in it. Thus, it is worth looking at the way that laws are made, and the way that their making has been subverted in America.

The essential purpose behind the making of laws is that all the people who live in a given jurisdiction abide by them thus be treated equally in terms of the obligations they must fulfill towards society, and in terms of the rights, entitlements and protection they receive from the state. But human nature being what it is, dodging the laws has been elevated to the level of high art whereby some people look for and use the loopholes by which they can be exempted from fulfilling their obligations towards society, or be allowed to receive more than an equal share of rights, entitlements and protection from the state.

There are lawyers who specialize in the art of dodging the law especially in matters concerning the tax code. They use the existing loopholes to help their clients save money, and they get remunerated for the work they do. Such operations may or may not be fair considering that the money these people save is money that someone else will pay, or it is an entitlement that someone else will not receive. Such deficiency in the system is usually remedied, however, in that firms now exist which, for a reasonable fee, will help any taxpayer save as much as possible on their tax returns. This mechanism evens out the playing field to some degree but not always because all the loopholes are not meant to serve all the people.

A bigger problem than dodging the laws when the loopholes already exist, is the fact that the legislators who make the laws insert the loopholes in them at the time they make them. This reality is the insanity which plagues the system we call democracy, and it happens because the legislators work with the lobbyists who ask for favors in exchange for campaign contributions. Thus, we see that the democratic system is prone to being subverted because the legislator is allowed to be corrupted by the legal act of accepting a campaign contribution.

When in the old days matters went too far in America, the press usually uncovered the exaggerations that were attempted in passing bills that favored one group or another at the expense of society. As a result, such bills were dropped or amended before they were voted on and allowed to pass and become law. But when the Jewish organizations gained strength in the country, a new and disturbing element crept into the American democratic process. It was to pressure the legislators not only by making a contribution to their campaigns but also forcing them through blackmail into making American laws that served the foreign country of Israel.

And the favors that these organizations asked for were not only financial aid to Israel but also political resolutions that had far reaching ramifications. They centered on the use of America's power and prestige to hurt someone in the world and force them to bend to the wishes of Israel. Thus, the Jewish organizations not only had America to play with, they now had the whole world to play with – at least that part of it where America had some sways. Needless to say that America's power and prestige were diminished each time that the superpower spent political capital to back the demonic demands of Israel. In fact, America's sway in the world has now diminished to the point that its superpower status has lost its meaning.

For these reasons, all binding and non-binding resolutions, all riders and all add-ons that were inserted into the American body of laws in favor of the alien nation of Israel must be rescinded if America is to regain its respect in the world. Rescinding them will also free America to negotiate with Iran – and everyone else involved in this matter – what is good for America not what is good for Israel.

As to the Dennis Ross article, archive it under: Nonsense created when a democracy begins to decay.

Eunuchs Complaining of no Respect

There was a time, decades ago, that some people saw it coming not because they were clairvoyant or anything like that but because they possessed a little common sense. They could see that if America continued to swagger around the globe like a big eunuch who is trotting in the nude believing he is blessed with the manliest of all endowments, America was going to lose the respect of the world. This is because there is nothing more self-deprecating than to brag about something you don't have when the world can see you don't have it.

In fact, the world conducted a mock trial at the time and found the swaggering American chief blusterer – a man nicknamed the W – to be a war criminal and a menace to the world. Not only that, but the world also found that the big eunuch was piloted by a minnow eunuch of the ambiguous kind; a demonic fabrication called Israel which is the joint where the swaggering W was emasculated and then taught how to give notice to the world that he will never allow someone else to surpass America's endowment.

It also happened at the time that a media machine was honed in America to serve as megaphone and a bully pulpit for the raising of mouthpieces that will do the dirty work for the minnow. The aim was to spread among the American public and the legislators, the moral clarity of the ambiguous kind that the minnow eunuch was famous for. Inspired by the Jewish Rodney Dangerfield's lament: “I don't get no respect,” the mouthpieces were taught to go around and name all those around the world who did not get no respect.

By that time a new President, Barack Obama, was elected in America who vowed to clean up his country and restore sanity to the relationships it maintained with the rest of the world. Little did he know, however, that he would collide head-on against the mouthpieces, the megaphone and the bully pulpit of the minnow eunuch whose influence had metastasized throughout the country like a cancer of biblical dimensions. Protected by the financial clout of the Fox-News/WSJ organization, the mouthpieces of the little eunuch unleashed a vicious campaign to belittle their own President, and make it look like he too got no respect when, in fact, he was succeeding in halting America's slide down the slope of no respect.

And now that America is beginning to get back some of its old luster, the mouthpieces are being gripped with hysteria. You see this in the Bret Stephens column titled: “The Age of American Impotence” that was published in the Wall Street Journal on June 25, 2013 also under the subtitle: “As the Edward Snowden saga illustrates, the Obama administration is running out of foreign influence.” The author sets the tone of his dissertation early on with this: “Mr. Putin [Russian President] always seems to discover … an opportunity to humiliate the United States.” But the fact is that Putin did nothing of the sort. What happened this time is what happens all the time; it is that Bret Stephens jumped on the opportunity to humiliate America because this is what he and those like him do for a living. These people get paid to humiliate America and praise the minnow eunuch that is Israel.

In fact, talking about Snowden, the columnist finds an opportunity to belittle the work that President Obama did to alleviate the image of a self castrated America swaggering around the world with a big mouth and little that would be considered manning up to the challenges of the time. Thus, Stephens wrote the following: “It's been said that his [Snowden] case illustrates how little has been achieved by President Obama's 'reset' with Moscow, or with his California schmoozing of China's Xi Jinping earlier this month.” So you ask: Who said that? And the answer should not surprise anyone; it was the media machine to which Bret himself belongs. And he sees no shame in concluding that “we are living in an age of American impotence.”

This point made, he now sees that such “is the larger significance of the Afghan diplomatic debacle.” But that's not all because he goes on to say that: “What's happening in Afghanistan is of a piece with the larger pattern of U.S. diplomacy.” He thus laments about Iraq, Syria and Iran where he feels that President Obama has failed to trot the swaggering American allure of a superpower now castrated by Jewish fiat.

And Bret Stephens ends the column by making the facetious suggestion that Moscow must now be trembling because of America's expression of disappointment.

No, the idea was never to make someone tremble; it was to bring calm to a world that has seen too much trembling already, especially by the Jews who were herded into the gas chambers that their leaders contributed mightily to erect. Let not this history be repeated, Bret. Never again.

A Wailing Wall without Wads of Stone

History is on the march and as always, the Jews (real, fake, new converts and old hacks) find themselves wailing not just at the wailing wall that is in Jerusalem but also the wailing wall without stones they carried inside of them throughout history as if to prove that you can take the Jew out of misery but you cannot take the misery and the constant wailing out of the Jew.

Two recent articles written by so-called Jews illustrate that point. The first was written by Charles Krauthammer and published on June 20, 2013 in National Review Online under the title: “Syria: America Sidelined” and the subtitle: “After Iraq, Obama wasted a golden opportunity to keep a presence in the region.” As to the second article, it was written by Thomas L. Friedman and was published on June 23, 2013 in New York Times under the title: “Syria Scoreboard”. It is to be noted that Krauthammer exhibits some Hebraic features which would indicate he may have one or two drops of Semitic blood in him. As to Friedman, he is no more a Semite than I am from Planet Vulcan – however much I wish I were.

Let's begin the analysis by dissecting the second article. To go back in time and look at the metaphorical big picture, Friedman looks at the region of the Middle East from what he says is 30,000 feet up. He sees the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, the entry of Britain and France into the region as colonial powers, and their exit from it after World War II. The result of that history, says he, is that the power to rule over the people was handed to local monarchs and generals, people that managed to keep “their diverse populations in line with iron fists.”

But now that the monarchs and the generals have been pushed out of power, the populations in six Arab countries are left with the question of self governance and how to achieve it. Friedman does not say how this can be done but zeroes in on Syria, one of the countries he cited. He says that the US President, Barack Obama, plans to arm the rebels who are fighting in a place where one scenario from among three will unfold. But he adds that none of the scenarios feels “very good because those fighting for a democratic outcome are weak and divided.”

Well, the trouble has always been that when a real or fake Jew speaks of his desire for democracy, he sounds like Jack the Ripper speaking of his desire for women. This aside, Friedman looked from 30,000 feet up to see events unfold from the time of the Ottoman Empire to this day when he should have been looking from higher up and from further back in time. He would have gotten a broader view of what happened in the past, and a better insight as to how things can be done more intelligently now.

Going as far back in time as the Roman Empire, we see that the seat of power moved from Rome in Italy to Constantinople in the Byzantine Empire. Constantinople is now called Istanbul which is situated in modern Turkey that was the seat of the Ottoman Empire up to the First World War. Shortly after the establishment of Byzantium, a protracted war erupted between it and the Persian Empire. The result has been the weakening of the two, which is what allowed the Muslim tribes from the Arabian Peninsula to conquer both and spread Islam among them.

The Arabs then brought under their banner most of what was the Roman Empire and most of what was the Persian Empire. Thus, they managed to extend their civilization across three continents, from the shores of Spain (Andalusia) on the Atlantic Ocean to the mountain ranges of the Himalayas in Northern India. And for the first time since antiquity, diverse people of all races, skin color and religions were brought to live together in peace and harmony not because the sword of Alexander the Great hung over their heads or because the Roman legions fed them to the lions if they did not, but because the Arabs taught them to live the civilized life of tolerance and inclusion that the ancients had developed thousands of years earlier and left it for the Arabs to inherit and live by.

A manifestation of that peaceful way of life has been the manner with which power was handed over from one ruler to the next. At first, it went through four successors (caliphs in Arabic) who ruled the growing empire from their seat in the Arabian Peninsula. After that, power was transferred to one dynasty after the other, each in a different country – such as the Umayyads who ruled out of Damascus, the Abbasids who ruled out of Baghdad and the Ottomans who ruled out of Constantinople.

The question to ask now is this: If Planet Earth has managed to go through seven thousand years of development during which time it advanced to the level of the ancient civilizations, then sunk to the depth of the European dark ages, then experienced an Arab inspired renaissance, then had a scientific and industrial revolutions only to create a system called democracy that does not seem to work too well even now – why should we look at that system and consider it to be the model that Syria or any country must duplicate to be viewed as a success story?

The answer is that there is not one good reason why it should be so. In fact, like it or not, the universe will unfold as it should, will do it on its own, and will do it as it sees fit – to paraphrase the immortal Desiderata. But to understand the reason for the continued wailing of the Jews, we turn to the Krauthammer article, and parse it to see what motivates these people now.

He begins by describing the current situation in Syria as he sees it. He says it is a civil war where the enemy side receives outside help but that the would-be natural ally of America receives nothing because President Obama dodged the chemical-weapons red line, and because Iran and Russia reached for regional hegemony. And this – he goes on to say – is proof that “Obama has been forced back into the very vacuum he created.” Well, is this wailing? You bet it is. But look how he does that:

He says: “The tragedy is that we once had a counterweight and Obama threw it away.” This is a fantasy that Krauthammer has created in his mind about the situation in Iraq. To force the reader to accept it, he mutilates the history of the war but sugarcoats his creation by making an admission at the start to the effect that all was not perfect in that war. Thus, he says this: “Whatever the wisdom of the Iraq war in the first place … the war was won.” Hoping that the reader will swallow this fabrication, he now builds on it: “We had a golden opportunity to reap the rewards of this too-bloody war.” This done, he lets out his wailing cry: “With our evacuation, however, Iraqi airspace today effectively belongs to Iran.” He blamed it all on someone else then wailed.

But the truth is that even before George W. Bush was elected to the presidency of the United States, the Jewish organizations had drawn up a war plan to destroy Iraq. When 9/11 happened and the W retaliated by bombing Afghanistan and decided to stop here, there came and explosion of opinions from the likes of Friedman and Krauthammer in print and in the audio-visuals, all demanding that America destroy Iraq as well. A memorable moment in the history of the Judeo-Israeli control of America happened when Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times stood in Israel (that's foreign soil) and relayed a stern warning via television to the American President. He said in effect, neglect destroying Iraq and you will suffer the same fate as your father who was booted out of office when the time came to reelect him.

And it was this war that created the current situation. But nothing should surprise you about any of this because it has been the history of Jews that they take advantage of every situation and score a few successes at the start. But because they never think of the consequences of their actions, they overdo things and always lose in the end. It stands to reason, therefore, that when they took command of America, they were going to repeat that same history for their possession.

And this is what is happening at this time. Thus, the Jews now have a wailing wall made of stones in Jerusalem where they can go and wail about their fate. And they have a wailing wall made not of stones but of the invisible either where they can wail all they want about screwing up the only friend they had, the one that is now sick and tired of them.

As to the events in the Middle East, the solution is negotiation between the parties to reach a compromise. This is what the Russians and the Iranians are calling for. Let America miss this opportunity by listen to the mindless voices that call for the adoption of a hard line, and America will someday be forced to turn Mount Rushmore into its own wailing wall.

Where To From Here, Israel?

It is beginning to look like the make-believe world created by the Jewish-Israeli propaganda machine is dissolving into the thin air from where it came. But there is no doubt in my mind that the people who used to run that machine will refuse to vanish with it. I believe that rather than disband, they will take a pause, catch their breath and get back to doing what they were doing before. They will try to do things differently this time, however, in that they will seek to find a fresh new approach.

Well, this is what they would be thinking now, except that by the time they have taken the pause and have caught their breath, they will have realized they are now dealing with a world that is so different from the one they inherited, to do the same as before and expect a different result because they plan to approach the matter differently, would still qualify their activities as being the product of insanity.

And so, the commanders of the old Jewish-Israeli propaganda machine will look straight ahead and far behind them; will look left and look to the right; and they will try to assess the new realities that surround them. They will see that three big changes have occurred, none of which will have come as a surprise to them, however. That's because the changes would have been the ones that contributed mightily to their first defeat after half a century of uninterrupted public relation triumphs.

The first change would be the fact that they no longer have the debating floor all to themselves. There is now enough people out there willing and able to cut through the tangled web of politically correct nonsense they set-up – the one by which they used to snare decent people, calling them antisemitic whenever they opposed their views and beat them fair and square in any debate. These people proved to be not antisemitic but anti-low-life which the so-called Jewish debating ignoramuses of the think tank variety turned out to be.

The second change would be the fact that the American host upon which they used to feed like a parasitic flea, is nearing depletion. Even the Congress of flea-tolerant dogs who used to sell their motherland for half a song, a smile and a pat on the back, is getting tired of the self-declared Jews who forever demanded something and forever grabbed the best that America had to offer without ever showing the slightest indication that their appetite was coming close to being gratified.

The third change would be the fact that Israel is running out of the kind of excuses it used to pull out of the hat and get American economic aid under the guise of using the money to enhance its security. The truth being that Israel used the money to feed a Jewish population that would have starved to death in a month or two were it not for America's never ending stream of donations and credits. When offered two dozen of the most advanced jet fighters in return for suspending the building of settlements in occupied Palestine for a period of ten months, they said no thanks because they had no use for more armaments being armed to the teeth as it was. And besides, it costs money to keep warplanes in shape and ready to fly even in peacetime – money they did not have to feed themselves let alone spend on weapons for which they had no use.

So the question is: Where to from here, Israel?

My advice to them would be to make a realistic assessment of what the future will hold, and position themselves in such a way as to avoid repeating the history of the real and fake Jews whose identity they stole – a history that has endlessly been duplicated for thousands of years. Given that they will not be able to hold on to the land they now occupy for ever, given that they will not be able to kill all the Palestinians living in those lands or throw them out, they better leave those lands now without condition, shake the hand of peace and reconciliation that the neighboring Arab countries are extending to them, and start working on the sort of economy that suits them.

There is only one way that a population their size can secure a high standard of living. It is to do what the Swiss and the Singaporeans have done which is to maintain a good relation with the neighbors, and develop normal diplomatic and commercial exchanges with them.

It will be this or it will be a thousand more years of getting nowhere spitting insults at everyone they encounter, then being forced to drink from the cups they fill with the venom of their own spit.

A Call to Return to Authentic Capitalism

If we begin with the proposition that anything authentic is by definition useful and/or productive, we accept all genuine ideas as having merit when used in the context for which they were developed. This includes the economic systems that were formulated and put to use since the start of human interactions. Accepting that proposition has the effect of freeing us from having to discuss one system by comparing it with another. For example, we can look at capitalism purely on its merit without having to compare it to say, a centrally planned system or something else.

Let us now look at the system that is currently in use in the United States of America. We assume that the system was at some point in its history operating according to the golden principles of authentic capitalism. And for the purpose of this discussion, let us say that the golden period was the Nineteenth Century; the one described by Alexis de Tocqueville in his 1833 book “Democracy in America.” This is discussed by Niall Ferguson in his Wall Street Journal article: “The Regulated States of America” published on June 19, 2013. The article also came under the subtitle: “Toqueville saw a nation of individuals who were defiant of authority. Today? Welcome to Planet Government.”

To see if that system has changed – if yes, changed to what – we look at Romain Hatchuel's article: “Central Banks and the Borrowing Addiction” published in the Wall Street Journal on June 21, 2013. The article also came under the subtitle: “From 1980 to 2010, overall U.S. debt grew as fast as GDP. From 1950 to 1980, it was a small fraction of Growth.” Hatchuel, who is a managing partner in an asset management firm, was motivated to write the article because: “Mr. Bernanke's [Chair of US Central Bank] latest comments, signaling a tapering off of monetary easing, triggered a sharp global sell-off in practically every asset class.”

What Hatchuel is saying basically is that the world is suffering from an ailment that has been in the making for three decades. He uses the metaphor of drug addiction to blame the accumulation of debt (caused by low interest rates) as the main cause of the ailment. He says the habit has allowed the most developed nations to artificially stimulate their economies and get addicted to the process. He gives statistical examples to make his points then cautions that: “Although one needs to be careful when drawing conclusions from such data, it is obvious that surging debt contributed massively to the economic expansion.”

He goes on to say that the result was the 2008 near meltdown of the world economies, a happening that prompted the central banks of the major ones to engage in monetary easing which, in turn, postponed the need to stabilize the aggregate levels of debt. To achieve this, the “Fed and its counterparts from England, the euro zone, Switzerland, Japan and China printed $10 trillion, thus tripling the size of their balance sheets.” This money served to inflate the value of assets to the point that “few serious money managers now see compelling investment opportunities out there.”

So then, what's the solution? Well, Hatchuel reports that some people say the party must go on, which means that the central banks should continue to print money and keep flooding the markets. In contrast, other people say that only a program of austerity can cure the ailment in that it will drain the excess liquidity thus bring matters back to their normal state. As to his personal views, Romain Hatchuel says that austerity is a life-or-death obligation. He wants it.

You know something, my friend? I think that Hatchuel sold a good chunk of his firm's holdings the day before the markets came down, and he is now swimming in a vast ocean of money. If austerity is implemented, it will bring the price of all assets to rock bottom levels. And this will be the time for him and for all those who have cash, to buy the assets at giveaway, fire-sale prices. So you ask: Is this capitalism? And you answer: No way can you call this capitalism. In fact, this is not the America that Tocqueville described in his book – even though in my view, Tocqueville was not talking economics.

We now look at the Niall Ferguson article. He begins by saying that “Tocqueville marveled at the way Americans preferred voluntary associations to government regulation.” He goes on to say: “What amazed Tocqueville was the range of NGOs that Americans use to give fetes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to regions; in this manner they created hospitals, prisons, schools.” Alas, Ferguson laments, Tocqueville would not recognize America today because “so completely has associational life collapsed, and so enormously has the state grown.”

Well, that's what Ferguson says, but you wonder if Tocqueville said something to link economics with the choice that people make when it comes to relying on the government or nongovernmental organizations to get things done. In fact, that was a time when Europe, including France and Britain were by far wealthier than America. And if Tocqueville marveled at a few things in America, he saw much that was undesirable there too. And when it comes to marveling at the “New World,” the French found much more to marvel about in Canada than in America. Tocqueville was not unique in that sense.

Still, desperate to use him as a wall against which to lien and build a case for his economics point of view, Ferguson, takes a detour, relying instead on the work of two other people. First, there is Robert Puttnam who wrote “Bowling Alone” in which he hinted at the linkage that Ferguson is looking for by referring to the associations as “social capital.” Second, there is Clyde Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute whose work shows that an increase in regulations forces people to rely more on the government than the associations and each other. And this, in turn, reduces American competitiveness thus lowers the standard of living. Add to this the cost which businesses must incur to cope with the regulations, and you see how high the price has gone.

And then, to make it sound that Tocqueville was clairvoyant enough or genius enough to have predicted all this, Ferguson writes the following: “Genius as he was, Tocqueville saw this transformation of America coming.” And he ends the article like this: “Tocqueville also foresaw how the regulatory state would suffocate the spirit of free enterprise ... 'it rarely forces one to act, but opposes itself to one's acting … and finally reduces [the] nation to being a herd of industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.'”

You see here the word “industrious” which is the clue that explains Tocqueville's state of mind at the time he authored that work. His time was the worst moment during the Industrial Revolution when people were treated worse than animals, when they choked on polluted air and were poisoned by polluted water. It was also the time when Romanticism was raging in the arts and the literature. It was a time when people dreamed of going away to the New World or to the vast expanses of North Africa and the Middle East where the air and the water were fresh, and the people felt as free as the birds.

Alexis de Tocqueville was no exception. And what he saw in America had nothing to do with economic theories anymore than the work of Charles Darwin had something to do with economic theories. But people like Niall Ferguson always try to make that false linkage. They create the noise that makes it hard to argue for the return of authentic capitalism. And this is why people like Romain Hatchuel manage to make oodles of money at the expense of everyone else without coming anywhere near being the capitalists that propelled America into the industrial age.

This is what we should all be lamenting about.

Just What Do They Mean by Moderate?

You listen to them for years on end as they call this one a moderate and that one an extremist; call this one a pragmatist and that one ideologue, but you never see them give a clear definition of the words they use. Suddenly, something seems to have changed – at least this one time. It is that John Bolton has published an article in FoxNews.com on June 18, 2013 under the title: “Hasan Rowhani is no moderate on Iran's nuclear weapons program” in which there appears to be an attempt to define the word moderate.

You must have guessed from the title of the piece that the author did not expressly set out to define that word – and you would have guessed correctly. But as you will see from the discussion that follows, it is in defining what is immoderate that he inadvertently defines what a moderate is in his eyes and the eyes of his comrades.

The first thing that Bolton does is make a crucial revelation: “Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards make key military policy decisions, not Iran's president.” Thus, whether Bolton meant to say it or not, the outcome of what has transpired during ten years of negotiations between Iran and the “West” with regard to the Iranian nuclear program, was never the responsibility of Hasan Rowhani who headed the Iranian negotiating team for a while. And this is because the outcome of the negotiations was never his to decide. When all is said and done, what this means ultimately is that Rowhani can only be judged by the way that he conducted himself and conducted the negotiations.

So then, what does Bolton say Rowhani did? Well, he begins by attacking the man: “He was central to Iran's strategy of using protracted negotiations to buy time and legitimacy under diplomatic cover.” He then explains why he has attacked Rowhani's character: “He promised Iran would sign an 'Additional Protocol' to the existing Agreement, which it did.” In other words, Bolton puts together a logical construct that goes like this: (1) the man promises, (2) the man delivers on the promise on time, therefore (3) the man uses negotiations to buy time. Well, my friend, I don't know about you but it sounds very Jewish to me and very illogical.

This is one incident. What else is there? Here is what else Bolton is reporting: “He said Iran might consider 'suspending' enrichment activities, but only if the West guaranteed a fuel supply for Iran's nuclear reactors.” So then what happened after that? This is what happened: “the European foreign ministers later confirmed Iran's agreement to suspend uranium enrichment.”

So far so good, but then what happened? Well, what happened was that during the press conference announcing the deal, Rowhani cautioned: “We voluntarily chose to do it … As long as we think the suspension is beneficial for us, it will continue. When we don't want it, it will end.” Iran kept its word to suspend the enrichment but continued to produce centrifuges it did not actually spin. The Europeans did not supply the fuel they promised, the negotiations between the two sides broke down and Rowhani notified: “We told you if you don't fulfill your promise, everything will return to day one.” And that's what happened.

What all this proves is that Rowhani is a man of his word. He never promised what he knew he could not deliver, and he delivered on everything he promised. And when he made a conditional deal, he cautioned at the outset that if the Europeans did not keep their side of the bargain, they will all be back to square one, which is what happened. Unable to find fault in any of this, Bolton does something that should cause smoke to blow out the ear of Neocons. He quotes a 2006 article in the New York Times chiding Rowhani. As to the Times article, it reported on a speech that Rowhani gave a day earlier.

This is what the man had said then: “While talking with the Europeans, we were installing equipment in the facility in Isfahan but we still had a long way to go to complete the project. By creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work. We are now prepared to go to the UN Security Council.”

Well, every word in that statement says that Rowhani kept his word and respected the applicable laws. And so did everyone else involved in the Iranian nuclear program. They were all smart negotiators which, in the eyes of Bolton and apparently the New York Times also, makes them immoderate. Too bad they feel this way.

As for Bolton, he is still lamenting: “Rowhani deceived, mocked and disdained the West.” No, John, when you negotiate with leaders who defend the interests of their people, you negotiate with intelligent human beings, not the selfish trash you meet in the American Congress of clowns and circus animals.

They Are Obsessed About Being Irrelevant

Look at this passage: “The time has come for the West to stop obsessing about the risks of stopping the Assad regime, Hezbollah and Iran, and start considering the consequences of not stopping them.” It is how Daniel Nisman ends his article; the one he wrote under the title: “If Hezbollah Wins Syria” and the subtitle: “Unchecked, Tehran and its ally will emerge more aggressive than ever.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on June 19, 2013. Oddly enough, we begin to understand what is going on here by harking back to the women's liberation movement of long ago.

There was a time before the movement to liberate the women of America when some of those who felt they were neglected or counted as irrelevant, resorted to pulling tricks that made them feel relevant and desired. They did so by fantasizing about situations that never happened. In fact, some of those fantasies were so powerful, they spilled into the open in that the women accused some of the men of sexually harassing them; accusations that in most cases, turned out to be false and so proven in the courts of law.

But the truth be told that these women exhibited nothing worse than a normal human reaction to an abnormal situation. Theirs was a behavior that is manifested not only in sexual relations but in all sorts of human relations. It can be seen at the individual level, the group level and even the national level. An example of this is the behavior of the men and women who think of themselves as working for Israel and the other Jewish causes. What happens here is that operators headed by a master trickster such as Tom Friedman and others – including the Daniel Nismans of this world – channel their energies to make Israel appear so relevant in the eyes of its neighbors and those of the world, they all obsess about it.

You can see this approach when you review the body of work done by Friedman, for example. You will learn that he made a career out of running around and telling his audiences, verbally and in writing, that the Arab leaders used to blame their poor performance on a shiny object – meaning Israel – which kept them from giving a better performance. But the fact is that no Arab leader ever admitted to giving a poor performance. Most of them plastered big pictures of themselves on the walls of large buildings to convey to the public and to visitors the message that they are so much larger than life, they provide their people with the best of everything. And this is why those leaders have maintained that the people loved them and were happy to be led by them.

As to Israel, neither the leaders nor the people wanted to know then or want to know now that the thing even exists. They don't have Israel on the maps they draw of the region; don't have it in their conversations and don't have it in their writings. To them Israel is worse than irrelevant and worse than invisible; it is non-existent. So you ask yourself, who is it that the Friedmans of this world and their Nisman imitators are trying to deceive? In answering this question, you realize that it isn't the Arabs or the Muslims. Who then? It can only be their American audiences. And the question is: To what end? There is only one end; to make Israel's neighbors the shiny objects by which to scare the American people and their leaders about little Hitlers rising in the Middle East, and setting off mushroom clouds over Europe and America – a group of nation they call the West.

And this is how the masters in the circus of make-believe make their American audiences believe that the Arabs and the Muslims are dangerous to them. This done, they advise that America must continue to pay the price, and continue to shoulder the responsibility of helping Israel stay on its feet, rise above its neighbors and sabotage every effort they make to self-develop. Thus, while Israel is ignored by its neighbors, the Americans are made to believe that it looms large and shiny in their eyes. And while the neighbors want nothing more than to live and let live, the Americans are made to believe they think of nothing but of ways to hurt the West.

This has the effect of motivating the clowns in the American Congress to act in such fashion as to hurt the Arabs and the Muslims for no apparent reason but to please the Jews. The clowns admit this much then hang their weird behavior on electoral exigencies which they say allow them to commit horrible crimes as long as they commit them in the name of democracy where the electoral exigencies are protected. When this happens, no response usually comes from the Arab or Muslim governments. And this is what prompts the young individuals in those places to do what militias normally do everywhere in the world. They spontaneously rise up and defend themselves, their families, their homes and their people anyway they can.

And so, in the Jewish tradition of describing the others by what they see in themselves, and describing the self by what they see in others, Friedman, Nisman and company have over the years called just about everyone they disliked as being obsessed or irrelevant. But this is the first time, as far as I can determine, that one of them has called the West itself as being obsessed.

Something big must be brewing, and we should all keep our eyes and ears wide open.

Singleton Playing International 'Checkaroo'

Imagine a self-styled patriarch coming up with an idea to gather around him devoted followers in a cult that says you are so special being a member of this group, you will be singled out to represent absolute goodness when goodness is talked about, and considered a common member of the human collective even when you single-handedly commit a horrible crime.

Perhaps a real Moses or perhaps an imaginary figure, the patriarch assembles a group of people that roams the Earth recruiting members of all races and all ethnicities whose common philosophy of life will rest on the belief that humanity owes them a living as well as the respect that is due to them by virtue of being always perfect and never less than that.

Over time, the habit of singling themselves in when good things happen, and singling themselves out when bad things happen, mutates into several derivatives, one of which being the motivational fuel that drives everything they do to retain the special status they have forged for themselves in the eyes of others. And for a reason that remains obscure to this day, they continue to call themselves Semitic Jews when, in fact, they are neither Semitic nor Jews but a bunch of parasitic riffraffs always on the lookout for a new host on which to feed.

When they find one, they open a toolbox that is full of techniques on how to deceive the host and make him believe he is receiving divine advice for free when in fact, he would be losing blood and treasure to the parasitic riffraff while getting nothing in return. One of the most effective techniques they use is to begin the conversation by attributing to others the evil they see in themselves, and to themselves the virtues they see in others. This has the effect of confusing the interlocutors so badly that they absorb what the riffraff are throwing at them without giving the matter any critical thought.

You see the use of this technique in a column that begins like this: “There's a sucker born every minute” which, for a moment, makes you think that the author who is Bret Stephens, is going to fess up to the fact that he has been deceiving his readers all these years, that he is gripped with remorse and that he is about to ask for forgiveness. But no, he does not do that, and you realize this much because you see that the title of the column is: “A 'Pragmatic' Mullah” and the subtitle is: “Iran's new president Hassan Rohani is no moderate.” The column was published in the Wall Street Journal on June 18, 2013.

After that introduction, Stephens dismisses all the good things that were said about the Mullah he identifies as Hasan Rohani, Iran's newly elected president. And so he asks: “Who is Mr. Rohani?” And he answers the question by referring the reader to what “my colleague Sohrab Ahmari noted in these pages Monday.” This being the subject of my previous article “Memo to WSJ: the Unicorn Is in New York,” I shall not rehash what I discussed previously but only point to the incestuous habit of someone writing something based on what a colleague wrote before.

You also see in the Stephens column the full flowering of the technique I call the “checkaroo” game. It consists of assembling all that is wrong about a situation into one basket and throwing the basket at the target of the day. For example, the Jewish organizations open a file on everyone they believe has the potential to become important someday. They gather information on him which they spin in such a way as to make him look good or look bad depending on where he stands with regards to their causes. But that's not all they do because if they really hate someone, they will bring what they can spin into dirt from all the files they have into the file of that one person. And they start to play the checkaroo game.

Look how Bret Stephens does that. Having noted what his colleague had said about the Mullah, he now attributes to him the 1994 bombing in Buenos Aires, the 1996 bombing in Saudi Arabia, the construction of nuclear facilities in Iran, the increase in the number of centrifuges and the further development of software and hardware for Iran's nuclear program. Furthermore, being the negotiator for Iran in all such matters, Rohani accomplished a great deal for his country on the diplomatic front despite what people say about the destructive attitude of the incendiary Ahmadinejad who managed to undo much of Rohani's good work.

Well, other people say that but Stephens who used to say the same thing for years now says this: “That's true only up to a point.” He makes this sentimental switcharoo because now that Ahmadinejad is gone, he wants to transfer into the Rohani file all the checkaroos that used to be in the Ahmadinejad file. And there is plenty of that.

Look at this treasure trove of checks: “Supply IEDs to Iraqi insurgents to kill American GIs? Check. Enrich uranium to near-bomb grade level? Check. Steal an election and imprison the opposition? Check. Take Royal Marines and American backpackers hostage? Check. Fight to save Bashar Assad's regime in Syria? Check that too.” That's one hell of a basket of checks to transfer from one file to another. The checkaroo game is about to heat up again.

And then comes the big surprise. The way that Stephens ends the column should baffle the readers because it sounds like he has just realized something he wants to keep hidden from them. Here is what he says: “The capacity for self-deception is a coping mechanism in both life and diplomacy, but it comes at a price. As the West cheers … it will come to discover how high a price it will pay.”

You know what this means, my friend? It means that because he is too young to remember, he either read history or someone told him about the warnings that were sounded when the Israelis started playing what they thought was the cute game of: “Guess if we have the bomb because we're not telling. We'll remain ambiguous, you'll scratch your head and we'll all laugh about it.”

Those who did not think it was a cute game developed what came to be known as the poor man's bomb, which is the arsenal of chemical and biological weapons said to be in the possession of Syria at this time. And this is what makes the situation in the Middle East neither cute nor funny because the price being paid is already high and promises to go even higher.

Yes, Israel must be singled out as the most evil thing that happened to Planet Earth, and Bret Stephens has just realized it on his own and by himself.

Memo to WSJ: the Unicorn Is in New York

The editors of the Wall Street Journal are certain that no one will be found in Iran who is so “moderate” as to sell his people to World Jewry for a song the way that the US Congress has sold the American people for half a song, a smile and a pat on the back.

For this reason, the editors have predicted that: “The West will renew its forlorn hunt for a moderate in Tehran” but will fail to find one because such creature has never existed anymore than: “An Iranian Unicorn” ever did.

In fact, that second quote is the title of their latest editorial which they published on June 17, 2013. Their piece also came under a subtitle which is shown here as the first quote.

Even though the editors admit that: “Mr. Rohani surprised most Iran-watchers by winning [thus] defeating the favorites of the supreme leader,” a result we must presume has surprised them too, they are certain about everything that happened which got us to this point. As well, they are certain of everything else that will happen from here on.

And so, we list their litany of certainties:

First, they are certain that the search for a moderate has beguiled every American President since 1979.

Second, the hunt for the unicorn [will] begin again.

Third, the vote reflects the desire of the Iranian people for a change from Ahmadinejad.

Fourth, the regime stole the 2009 election.

Fifth, no one should expect change in policy, especially on national security.

Sixth, Rohani will turn out to be not a Thomas Jefferson in a robe.

Seventh, ultimate power in Iran will remain with Mr. Khamenei.

Eighth, Iran today is a Shiite fascist state with an electoral veneer and ambitions to dominate.

Ninth, The White House will ramp up diplomacy to strike a nuclear deal,

Tenth, Rohani will only go along for the talks to ease sanctions and buy nuclear time.

So you ask how they can be so certain of anything about Iran when they were so surprised by the result of the election. And you get an answer from them: “Our colleague Sohrab Ahmari explains.” The reference here is to an article that Ahmari – who is of Iranian origin – published on the same day and the same page under the title: “Behind Iran's 'Moderate' New Leader” and the subtitle: “Hassan Rohani unleashed attacks on pro-democracy student protesters.”

In fact, there is very little about Rohani in the Ahmari article that would indicate he is a bad person except for what appears in the subtitle of the article. This is the allegation that was made over the telephone to Ahmari by an Iranian expatriate now living on the West Coast. Even if we accept the allegation at face value, it does not say that Rohani will necessarily turn out to be a bad President. The world has seen much worse leaders who served their own people and served humanity well enough to be considered a success.

Still, Ahmari goes on to tell what is wrong with Rohani “beyond Iran's borders.” He says the man has favored resistance and nuclear defiance. He boasted that Iran did not suspend but completed the program. He also predicts that Rohani will back Assad because “Syria has been on the front line of fighting Zionism.” Is that it? That's what's wrong with the man?

Apparently so which is why Ahmari ends the article saying the following: “these facts should give pause to those in Washington and Brussels eager to embrace this mullah.”

Well, given the psychedelic nature of the brain that would reach this conclusion based on that presentation, I say that the Iranian unicorn was never found in Iran because he was in New York all that time operating under the nose of the Wall Street Journal editors.

The Distorted Vision of Editorial Psychos

What kind of clowns are these who see travesty in everything solemn, and see solemnity in everything frivolous? At a time when their country is mired in matters concerning domestic spying and foreign intrigues, the editors of the New York Times call a judicial travesty, a case of spying and intrigues that was adjudicated in an open court in Egypt. They make this call basing their opinion on the view that spying and intrigues do not happen.

Is it their shamelessness, their mental retardation or is it both deficiencies that cause these people to see things in reverse? See them upside down? What is it about them that makes them believe a court system like theirs which repeatedly convicts the innocent and absolves the guilty – is always right? And what is it about them which makes them see travesty in a court that looks at characters who say their mandate is to interfere in the affairs of Egypt – and convicts them of interfering in the affairs of Egypt?

Can these editors be serious? Are they normally trivial? Or is it that they are always stupid? Downright stupid? You, my friend, will ask yourself these questions when you read the editorial that was published in the New York Times on June 15, 2013 under the title: “A Judicial Travesty in Egypt.” It is natural for men who are very, very sick to rape little girls or little boys and say they did it for love. And it looks just as normal for the editors of the New York Times to see the testimony of their spies and their schemers (given in court and outside of it) then write this: “The decision [of the Egyptian court] sends a chilling message to the United States that has committed to being Egypt's partner in establishing democratic institutions.”

To rape a child and claim to have committed an act of love is a horrible crime. To rape people at gun point and call the victims paranoid for stating the obvious is the work of psychos who are too dangerous to be left out there roaming the streets. Yet this is what the editors of the New York Times are doing. It is that members of the groups which committed the spying and the intrigues in Egypt, as well as those in America who supported them financially and logistically have spoken. Time after time, they wrote that America must use its power and prestige to threaten Egypt with irreparable damage if it did not let the rapists of its national sovereignty get back into the country and resume the rape.

In case the editors of the Times missed reading that mutilated logic of the criminally insane, they can read their own words which are just as criminal and just as insane. Here is a sample of that: “Secretary of State John Kerry has condemned the verdict but a much stronger American response is needed. The verdict might also be cause for Washington to rethink its relation with Egypt, whose transition is running aground. It is troubling that Mr. Kerry approved giving Egypt its annual $1.3 billion despite its failure to meet Congressionally mandated democracy standards.”

Now look at this other passage: “The court convicted them. In doing so, it capitulated to the paranoid argument that the groups – which, among other things, train poll workers and work on voter education – were 'foreign hands' out to destroy Egypt. Altogether, the groups receive far less from foreign sources than the $ 1.3 billion the army receives annually from the United States … the verdict is a travesty, and Mr. Morsi should pardon them.”

Educate the voters, they say? What do these psychotic editorial animals believe the candidates are there for? To sit like potted plants while foreigners teach the voters all about American style Jewmocracy? What can a rapist teach its victims ye dumbbells of the Jewish propaganda machine who are disguised as journalists? Are you asking the victims to learn how to love being raped the way that you and the American Congress are allowing the rape of America to take place day in and day out?

Now, if you want to know how someone as primitive, retarded and demonic as the Jewish editors of the New York Times tell the American government to blackmail a country, look how these characters have ended their editorial: “Egypt's stability and its ability to build institutions, establish sound economy and uphold the peace treaty with Israel are hugely important. The United States needs to find a more effective way of getting that message across.” They are threatening instability and destruction. This is an American al-Qaeda headed by a Jewish UBL.

And you, gentlemen of the New York Times, you need to visit a doctor specialized in mental health. I believe there is one near you who goes by the name Kevorkian.

Discovery of the Journalistic Missing Link

There was a time when archeologists were furiously searching for the missing link that was thought to exist between the monkeys that we were and the human beings we have become. Thus, to attribute the term “missing link” to someone was a derogatory gesture meant to express that the person had not yet fully developed into a human being. Well, the same thing can be said about anything that has not yet developed to its full potential or that it did at one time but then regressed to a lower state of existence.

The latter example has been the case with the North American media in that it used to be fully developed but has regressed – due to the Jewish influence – to now sit just above the level of the monkey. It was difficult to find the bone that would link the lower state of existence to the higher state, but we have it now thanks to the New York Times that kept Tom Friedman on its team long enough to reach the zone of the missing link. Friedman did it by writing “Egypt's Perilous Drift,” a column that was published on June 16, 2013 in the New York Times.

But how can you assess the level of development that a publication and its journalist have attained? The way to do it is to see what the journalist is looking at and what he is calling it. For example, if he looks at a diamond and sees not a precious stone but a lump of coal, he remains a monkey. If he looks at a diamond and says it is a piece of carbon that is neither coal nor diamond but something in-between, he is himself the missing link between monkey and human being.

And this is what happened to Tom Friedman when he went to Egypt this time intent to do what he always did which is to look for coal. But he found the diamond that is Egypt, and he still refuses to call it diamond. He is not calling it a lump of coal either in that he attributes to it some diamond characteristics in addition to those of coal. He might think of it as the missing link between coal and diamond, thus demonstrating that he is himself the journalistic missing link between world class journalism and Jewish American trash.

Before the Jewish takeover of the American media, the coverage of the Arab and Muslim worlds – among them Egypt – was done normally. By the time the Jewish influence had permeated all the nooks and crannies of the industry, the coverage of that part of the world had become the non-stop discharge of raw sewage it is today. In fact, the joke around here is to the effect that if you want to locate the sewers and the garbage dumps of Egypt, the way to do it is to follow an American journalist. These people seem to feed on the stuff. They write about it incessantly while completely ignoring everything else. But there is also a mantra without which they can never write about Egypt. It is that no matter what they see in the country, and no matter what they fail to see, they must say they saw two things while there: poverty and religion.

Thus, whatever his travel to Egypt was meant to cover this time, Tom Friedman was to go to Marsa Alam on the Red Sea where tourism has returned to pre-Revolution levels. This meant the environment has again occupied center stage in the country. In fact, with ten to fifteen million people visiting Egypt every year, the places they go to such as the antiquities and the resort areas become the concern of the government as well as the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that deal with environmental matters.

An organization that goes by the acronym HEPCA was formed in Egypt more than twenty years ago and has since acquired a sterling reputation worldwide for the work it does, not only in Egypt but in the entire Red Sea region and beyond. Tom Friedman visited the place and wrote a few good things about it but did not do it the justice it fully deserves. What can you do – c'est la vie? Still, it is a case of better something than nothing.

There was, however, something he could have skipped but did not. He did not skip looking for garbage or sewers to write about. Alas, he could not do that anymore than you could keep a seagull from feeding in a garbage dump.

What Friedman did in this regard is something he started the column with given that it was an obligation he had to discharge before going on to more important things. Thus, he wrote the following: “I visited a dirt-poor Imbaba neighborhood … Around the corner, men have two manhole covers lifted …In the background, you hear children in a Koranic school repeating verses.”

You see how lucky he got! As fate would have it, he found everything he went looking for in one and the same place: poverty, religion and the sewer.

He must have gorged himself with the stuff to indigestion, after which he tried to force-feed the readers of the New York Times with an unlikely scene. But the fabrication turned out to be too Jewish and too transparent to impress anyone.

Try telling the truth, Tom. Arab truth sounds better than Jewish lies. And when you get there, you will have left the zone of the missing link at last to join the human race.

Autocratic Rule in Fake Parallel Democracies

On June 13, 2013, Clifford D. May wrote a column and had it published in National Review Online under the title: “Iran's Meaningless Presidential Elections” and the subtitle: “We should focus on the clear objectives of Iran's real rulers – not a sham vote.” Clifford May is the president of a joint he founded and to which he gave the name: “Foundation for Defense of Democracies.” He describes the joint as being an “institute” that focuses on “national security” though he does not say if national means Israel only or if America is included in the deal.

Like the defendant who goes before a judge and tells him or her: I was lying before, but I'm telling the truth now, our esteemed author comes before us, the readers who will judge him by the veracity of what he says, and he tells us he was an old Liberal (presumably a liar) who turned coat and became a new Conservative (presumably a truth teller) which is what makes of him a Neocon. Since it is impossible to think of someone more Liberal than Bill Moyers doing a documentary at PBS, Clifford May presents his credentials like this: “[In 1979] I was a reporter in Iran working for Bill Moyers at PBS.” He may have been proud then but he does not look it now.

He hopes, however, that this confession will take the sting out of the liberally minded work he did at the time with regard to Iran's election. Lest someone think of him as having been fooled, he accuses everyone else of being fooled by what they saw – then quickly adds that deep down, he was the only one skeptical. This is how he put it: “ten years ago, Richard Armitage called Iran a democracy … In recent months John Kerry and Chuck Hagel have said that Iran has an 'elected' government. Hagel even added that it was 'legitimate.'” Phew! He can breathe easier now having come this close to defaming himself.

But who would vouch for him being skeptical at the time? Oh well, that's an easy thing for him to do; he is a Jew after all. Look how he does it, and marvel at his skill: “The Iranian producer with whom I was working regarded my skepticism as unjustified and unfair.” See how he does it? He plucks a reliable witness out of thin air and dares us, 34 years later, to find out who he may have been. We can then ask the witness if he still remembers whether Clifford May was skeptical or trustful of what he was seeing. If we cannot do that, the May claim will stand as the gospel truth. Skillful, isn't it? You really have to be a Jew to be endowed with this sort of genius.

By now he reckons he is firmly in command of the fake narrative he has erected. He feels secure enough to build on it and go as high as he wants because from this point on, the sky will be his limit. And so, he gives a hint as to the roots of his old liberalism: “What struck me was how much the [Khomeini] system resembled what I had seen as a student in the Soviet Union.” He does not tell what he thought then of the Soviet system but he repudiates it now: “the officials they elected held no real power. That was reserved for the Communist party.” But what was he thinking then? Did he think Uncle Joe (Stalin) was a great guy? Cliff is not confessing now.

He got to this point with ease, however, and so he feels he can start drawing parallels between the old Soviet Union and the Iranian regime which remains the same today as it was in 1979: “the supreme leader wields supreme power. He does not answer to the people. To insure that his will is done, there is the elite Revolutionary Guard and the militia.” And this is where you, the reader, begin to wonder if this is not what is happening in America today with AIPAC, the Jewish lobby that wields supreme power and does not answer to the American people. To ensure that the lobby's will is done, there is the elite Thought Police (of political and Semitic correctness) and there is the militia of journalists who take their orders from the TANY (Tel Aviv/New York) axis of threats and blackmail.

Clifford May continues with the description of what he says is happening in Iran, but sounds more like what is happening in America. Look at this: “The Guardian Council – appointed, not elected – together with the supreme leader decide who is and who is not qualified to be a presidential candidate.” Hey, this sounds very much like: The AIPAC clowns – appointed, not elected – together with the clowns of the Jewish anti-Defamation League and the Jerusalem Post decide who is and who is not qualified to be a presidential candidate in America.

He goes on to cite the following remarkable parallel: “Khamenei made clear to the finalists that they are not to suggest Iran might be better off pursuing a policy of peaceful coexistence with America and Israel.” Hey, this sounds very much like: “The Jewish honchos made clear to the American finalists that they are not to suggest America might be better off pursuing a policy of peaceful coexistence with the Arabs or the Muslims – most especially Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.” Hey, this sounds like a parallel universe; what happens in one happens in the other almost exactly the same way.

But – and there is a but – in America, the Jewish honchos go even further than that, and they tell everybody who they can talk to, and who they cannot. They tell them who they can sell weapons to, and who they cannot. They do all this at the same time as the Israeli officials meet “in secret” with all sorts of people from everywhere, including Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranians. They do this while Israel continues to sell not only weapons to every buyer that has cash to spend, but do it with American military secrets as well – which they sell to China, America's rival superpower in the making.

This scandalous Jewish behavior is so obvious to every observer that the author had to find a way to strengthen his basket of deceptions while confusing the readers about what they might have seen on television. He did it by cramming three separate ideas in one short paragraph: “You'll recall that when the election results were announced, Ahmadinejad was the winner. Millions of Iranians took to the streets shouting: 'Death to the dictator!' and asking President Obama, 'Are you with us or against us?'” The truth is that while a large number of people took to the streets, they were not in the millions. The number that shouted their dismay at the “dictator,” was no greater than a few dozens. As to those who asked President Obama a question, they were no more than a handful. But when the author juxtaposed the three points, he made them sound like cause-and-effect when, in fact, they are not connected, and are false or exaggerated to begin with.

Then comes the obligatory Jewish tripping of the self. Look at this: “Why do Iran's rulers bother with this Charade? Because most dictators still like the sound of the word 'democracy.' Think of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.” Hey, Cliff, you forgot “Foundation for Defense of Democracies,” your own baby. You like the sound of the word “democracy”? It must be that you do because it's what you say you are defending. Next time, however, you should begin by defining what you mean when you say democracy because people think of Jewish democracy as the mobilization of America to serve the interests of Israel and the Jews everywhere in the world.

And it is in this autocratic spirit that he ends the article: “It is this reality – not an Iranian election – that we should be discussing.” You see, my friend, Clifford May is a high ranking member of the Jewish Thought Police. He is now telling the Americans what they can think and what they cannot. What they can discuss and what they cannot. It is his job to do that; the job for which he gets paid handsomely. And guess who pays him? The American taxpayer, of course, with tax free donations.

But why be so adamant about what to think and what to discuss in America? Because: “Only then can we hope to formulate a serious national-security strategy for the challenging years that lie ahead.” And this means the obligation that America has to go bankrupt and die when necessary to defend Israel's right to continue playing the role of skunk in the Middle Eastern Garden of Eden.