Fanciful Delusions by the Ignorant Onlooker

If you want to know how far down the cesspool of uselessness American journalism has sunk, read Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post. He never fails to show that there is always a way to go lower still – lower than the lowest, and further down below that. His latest is an article he wrote under the title: “John Kerry's departure from reality,” published in the Washington Post on March 30, 2014. In it, Diehl uses the newly invented Jewish style of painting what looks like a normal picture, to then take the unaware readers down to the abyss of the cesspool where he surprises them with the point he was aiming to make from the beginning.

The point is what the Jews have been making for several generations; one that is based on this principle: “Give us the tools and we'll do the job.” They want the Americans to keep supplying the Israelis with money and weapons so that they may kill as many Palestinians as they can, and chase the survivors, if any, out of Palestine. It is a policy of genocide that has allowed the Jews to grab more and more of the Palestinian territories; acts that the Jews intend to continue committing till they take all of Palestine.

To maintain that devilish policy, and to reach their demonic goal, the refrain they have been singing all along is the refrain that Jackson Diehl is himself now singing; it is what you will find at the end of the article. It goes like this: “a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace isn't possible now.” He and those like him have been saying that same thing for half a century now, and they will be saying it for ever if allowed to have it their way.

To wrap his ideas in a package that looks like an article he can publish, Diehl has gathered a number of stories with a common element, and has woven the whole thing into a narrative. John Kerry turned out to be the most convenient common element to use in this case because he is someone that Diehl never tires to beat up on, being the man that keeps rejecting the old Jewish refrain. Diehl chooses three optimistic portrayals of the region that Kerry made four months ago, and says that the latter was delusional about them. He claims he made that assessment of Kerry then, and was proven by time to have been correct.

The portrayals dealt with (a) the return to normalcy in Egypt, (b) the yearning for stability in Syria and (c) the possible resolution of the Palestinian issue. Even though Kerry did not place a time limit for completing his work, and did not say what will indicate whether he succeeded or failed, Diehl has decided that the time has expired, and that John Kerry has failed everywhere. He invented fake reasons by which to describe the failures, and went as far as to accuse John Kerry of enabling the bad guys in the region who then gave shape to the failures.

Diehl explains himself with these words: “Start with Egypt.” He goes on to say that the aim in this case was to restore democracy to that country as promised by its foreign minister; a promise that Kerry endorsed. But this is not happening says Diehl, and he has proof. Oh yeah! Well, what's the proof, Jackson? There was a trial in Egypt, he says. You mean the court case that is subject to appeals and reviews? Well, that's a natural part of the democratic process, isn't it? It may have been flawed this time but nobody is perfect, and there is reason to believe it will be corrected. Yes, yes, but that's not the only thing, says Diehl, because a general appeared on television – get this now – he appeared in uniform to announce that he would run for president.

In uniform, you say? What wrong with that? You mean you're objecting to the uniform thing? Well, let me ask you something, Jackson. Do you speak Arabic? No, you don't? Okay, let me ask you another question. Did you have someone translate what the general was saying? Did you say no? So, I take it that you don't know how the general started the speech; am I correct? Did you say I am correct? Good. Well, let me tell you how the general started the speech because I speak Arabic and I listened to the thing.

The general started by saying this is the last time he would be wearing this uniform. He resigned his military job, he is now a civilian and he is running to be President of Egypt. You know what this means, Jackson Diehl? It means you have committed the most ignorant mistake that a fake journalist can make. Being no more than an onlooker, and not knowing what was being said, you wrote about something you know nothing about. And you went on to beat up on those who do not see things your way.

This is why I am not going to read the rest of your article or talk about it for, it would be a waste of time.

No SCOTUS, Money is not the same as Speech

Dan Balz has an article in the Washington Post under the title: “The 'Sheldon Primary' is one reason Americans distrust the political system.” Published on March 28, 2014, the article discusses an actual and current situation pertaining to the consequences of the 2010 Supreme Court's ruling in the case: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

These are consequences that began to be felt immediately after the ruling, and have gradually become more serious during the past four years to the point that they now look as badly as a full-fledged horror story. The latest chapter in the still unfolding drama is introduced by Dan Balz with these words:

“Several prospective presidential candidates have gathered for the opening round of what has been dubbed the 'Sheldon Primary' … [it] is named for Sheldon Adelson who poured more than $92 million into the 2012 elections … He is now looking toward 2016, determined to find a candidate who can win the presidency … Those looking at running would be happy to have that kind of financial support. Some have come to meet privately with Adelson … this new financing structure has had a corrosive effect on public confidence in government and politicians. It is why so many Americans feel shut out of the process … Many had a role in bringing the system to this point – the courts, special interests, incredibly wealthy individuals with their own agendas.”

It is no exaggeration to call that development a horror story with no end in sight.

The ruling of the Supreme Court was based on the premise that money was the same as speech. It is now clear that this was a mistake. It was a false premise from which the judges started their thinking process. There is no doubt that the judges understand speech; this is their thing, it is what they live for. But there is doubt they understand money as well because money has never occupied a central position in their intellectual pursuit. If it did, they would have known there is a big difference between money and speech, and would most likely have ruled differently.

The American Constitution correctly gives free speech absolute freedom because in a debate between two individuals (no matter whom they are) or two camps (no matter their composition,) the contest is between equals and between their ideas. The side which comes up with the set of ideas that is most convincing wins the debate. And this makes it so that the outcome of the contest depends on the merit engendered by the ideas, and not on some extraneous element. Thus, there is the real need to see the debate run its course so as to air all the ideas, and not see it cut off prematurely at some arbitrary point. To do so would do injustice to one side or the other, which would defeat the intent of the Constitution that guards against placing a limit on the freedom of speech.

When it comes to the accumulation of money, however, the merit that goes into this process is different from the merit that goes into the process of generating ideas, and the two are too far apart to be equated. Because ideas are generated by a process of pure thought, it is free of constraints. Money, on the other hand, is generated by a more complicated process where the essential requirement is to surmount obstacles during the entire run.

And so, to allow speech to depend on the availability of money is to make speech fit the template by which money is accumulated. More specifically, when one side in the debate runs out of money – thus reflecting the obstacles it was asked to surmount – it suffer an arbitrary end to the debate and loses the contest. It loses not because it ran out of ideas of which it may still have plenty, and brilliant ones for all we know, but because it encountered the extraneous element of having to surmount difficult obstacles while trying to accumulate the necessary amounts to remain in the race.

The above discussion should be convincing enough that money and speech are two different things, and cannot be equated. Consequently, the assertion that no limit can be placed on the amount of money spent where no limit is placed on the amount of speech that can be made, is a false assertion and must be rejected.

In consequence of all that, the ruling made in the 2010 case: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission should be reversed as soon as the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has the opportunity to do so.

There Is only One Global Hate Machine

An appropriate response to Michael Auslin's article: “China's Diplomatic Hate Machine” would be that there is only one global, world class hate machine, and it is not in China. Also, with regard to his subtitle: “Beijing foments anti-Japan hatred at home and abroad,” it must be said that what is circulated at home cannot be called hate propaganda because this labeling fits only what is circulated abroad. The article was published in the Wall Street Journal on March 28, 2014.

The truth is that China's natural inclination is to have as little exposure as possible abroad because the Chinese culture has always endeavored to remain self-sufficient. A testament to this effect is the Great Wall of China which not only remains a symbol of that reality but a physical manifestation of the isolation that suits the Chinese temperament. On the other hand, it is Israel that does a great deal of self promotion abroad, standing on the shoulders of its hate propaganda arm known as World Jewry and the running dogs that run with it. For these reasons, it must be concluded that if there is a hate propaganda machine, it is only the Jewish hate machine.

I became aware of this reality a long time ago, and the term “hate machine” came to mind, but I never used it till I started this website. The reason why I did not use it before is that I was blacklisted by none other than the Jewish hate machine – and because bad things were happening as a consequence. It is that the operatives of that demonic concoction, and their running dogs kept an eye on me with the view of gathering as much as they could of what I said and wrote while trying to punch through the curtain of blacklist they erected around me. And so, while very few people were aware of my ideas, the Jewish operatives and their running dogs committed a bad thing they called “mining” my work; the very work they tried to block at every turn, on every occasion.

Here is how they operated: To avoid being caught plagiarizing me, they used my discoveries, analysis, ideas and syntheses not in the way that I formulated them, but turning them upside down. For example, if I wrote or said: “It is absurd to think that the unarmed Palestinians will see justice as long as they continue to be butchered by the settlers surrounding them,” I would see the next day, and for a few days after that, dozens of Jewish operatives and their running dogs write columns in which some version of the following would appear: “It is hard to believe that the peaceful settlers will someday enjoy the ideal life they yearn for while surrounded by terrorists.”

This convinced me that if I used the term hate machine, they will use it or use a variation on the theme to convince their captive American audiences that it is the Arabs who possess a propaganda machine or a hate machine or what have you. And so, I refrained from using the term and many others till I launched the website. I then started using all the words and expressions I could think of when I saw that the Jews and their sidekicks had become more careful and more subtle in the way that they used my work. Instead of outright mining or plagiarizing it, they now draw energy from it … which is okay with me because, after all, I write to try and influence people, including them.

I do not know what prompted Michael Auslin to use the term “hate machine” so openly at this time without giving credit where credit is due, especially that he is using it in a place where it makes no sense. All that China did according to him is dedicating a memorial to the Korean man who took the life of the ruthless Japanese governor that ruled Korea with an iron fist. China also established two holidays; a day to commemorate the defeat of Japan in the Second World War, and a day to honor the dead Chinese who were massacred by Japanese troops in Nanjing. You don't need a diplomatic hate machine to do that; you only need a simple proclamation.

So the question: How does that compare with what the Jewish hate machine is doing? Well, a true hate machine – like the Jewish machine – is made of thousands of parts distributed across the globe, and connected with each other via a central command system that is constantly issuing instructions to each part, and coordinating among them as they execute those instructions. In America alone, the Jewish machine has thousands upon thousands of operatives, all working to incite hate and violence against the enemy of the day. And all of humanity – it seems – gets to take turns being the enemy of the day ... on this one day or that other day.

In addition, the Jewish hate machine works to entice and buy the soul of every defective lawmaker at the federal and state levels, then uses the bad apples to rot the entire basket. When this is completed, the operatives compel the rotting legislators to march in lockstep and promote the interests of Israel and those of the Jews while sabotaging the interests of America. This is something the Jews do to weaken the country and render it docile so as to remain permanently dependent on World Jewry for advice and guidance.

It is therefore easy to see that the Jewish hate machine is the one that has ejaculated, and the one that continues to ejaculate tons of moral syphilis into the heads, hearts and souls of Americans to make them believe that it was the Arabs who launched half a dozen wars against Israel but that Israel won them all ... when in reality, it was Israel that launched the wars, and Israel that lost them all – with one small exception.

In fact, this is why Israel was kicked out of all the territories it tried to occupy except for the West Bank of the Jordan River where the population was unarmed when attacked, and remains unarmed to this day. Yes, the Jews can win a skirmish once in a thousand years but only when they are armed to the teeth, and they fight to butcher old men, women and children who don't even have a knife with which to defend themselves.

And this causes us to ask the question: Why is it that a Jewish hate machine exists at all? The answer is that there is always a supply of new recruits willing to be drafted into the ideology, attracted by the false promise that they will become the chosen children of God, and will have privileges that no one else can have. And these privileges will be supplied by the American taxpayers, ordered by the syphilis-packed rotting legislators.

There is nothing of that in the Chinese culture whereas the Jewish culture is nothing but that.

Must not Confuse Strategy with Tactics

A human endeavor that requires the engagement of a considerable amount of thinking to realize, calls for planning to be done at two levels. One level consists of a long term planning – called strategy – for which an ultimate goal is envisioned. Another level consists of a series of short term plannings – called tactics – whose executions aim to lead to the ultimate goal envisioned for the strategy.

Of course, being a long term planning, a strategy takes a long time to execute, and this is different from the tactics whose executions take a shorter time to realize. A good leader, therefore, is an individual that can plan, operate and execute a task at both levels simultaneously without getting so confused as to mix the short term tactical goals with the long term strategic one. Such leader will have a team of individuals who understand the strategy aimed for and never lose sight of it. They also understand the daily tactics they must rely on to proceed methodically towards the ultimate goal.

It happens at times that a permissive environment develops in the places where important strategies are implemented. There develops under the name of democracy a situation where too many people enter the fray and offer unsolicited advice to the team that is in charge. Democracy is a good thing but the trouble is that a number of these people would know very little about the subjects they purport to discuss, and know nothing about the art of governing.

The handicap from which these people suffer is that they cannot see the difference between a strategy and the tactics that lead to it. What they end up doing is get in the way of the team executing the plan, especially when they do more than give advice, and start scoffing at the governing team for failing to reach the ultimate goal of the strategy every time that they see the completion of a tactic. To their deluded minds, this should have been the place where the mission was supposed to end, and the time to celebrate the ultimate glorious victory.

That development can only be called democracy run amok. Unfortunately, this is where most of the Western world finds itself at this time, especially the United States of America where “more democracy being a cure for the ills of democracy” has been crippled by a phenomenon called “political correctness.” What happens under this demonic system is that more democracy is encouraged but only if you echo-repeat the line dictated by those who would hurt you. In fact, you soon realize that if you don't repeat, they will not hesitate to use one or more of the multitude of methods they have at their disposal to silence you and vanish you like a puff of smoke.

This is why it has become the norm to see the incomprehensible take place. It is that the systems in which little or no democracy is practiced, come on top each time that they confront a place where the demonic system disguised as democracy has taken hold. Simply put, no democracy is better than demonic democracy. And this explains why Vladimir Putin of Russia is having the time of his life executing with confidence his grand strategy one tactical victory after the other. He is marching forward at a time when his Western counterparts are mired in a sea of confusion where every democratic demon raises the sea level by emptying his first amendment bladder into it while denying the exercise of true democracy to those who have the ability to formulate a winning strategy for the West and for humankind.

But there seems to be a glimmer of hope; a small light rising at the horizon. It is that a number of American elder statesmen are taking the trouble to make their voices heard. They are doing it because they see how badly their country has been served and continues to be served by the demonic voices that have monopolized the public square. The elders have also realized that having lived their lives to the fullest, they can no longer be hurt by the demons or by their followers.

Two such elders wrote an article that was published in the Washington Post on March 27, 2014 under the title: “How to deal with Russia without reigniting a full-fledged Cold War psychology.” They are George P. Shulz and Sam Nunn who had distinguished careers serving their country during several administrations. When you read the article, you get the sense at the start that they are taking the correct approach because they speak at once of the short term tactics and the long term strategy. Look at this: “Russia has taken over Crimea … Now is the time to act but also to think strategically.” Whatever they say after that should be considered a legitimate part of the debate whether or not their plan or parts of it will work at the end of the day. And only time will tell how much success they will have contributed to America's endgame.

Another article worthy of note is that of Walter Russell Mead. It was published in the Wall Street Journal on March 29, 2014 under the title: “The President's Foreign Policy Paradox” and the subtitle: “Obama's global wish list can't be achieved while decreasing commitments overseas.” Mead was once a harsh critic of Obama's foreign policy because he expected to see him deliver a strategic “mission accomplished” at the end of every tactic that was won or lost by America. When no such glorious victory happened, Mead blamed it all on the incompetence of the President, never explaining how doing otherwise would have led to the magnificent victory for which he was yearning.

But Walter Mead has changed lately, showing signs that he is developing into the elder statesman who will someday contribute positively to the intellectual enrichment of his country. In the meantime, he has written this article where he displays the kind of wrestling with ideas he has been doing while searching for a path that the nation can take without risking too much or expecting more than is reasonable. And so, rather than do what he used to do in the past which is to blame the difficulties on the President, he acknowledges that “Mr. Obama embraces a global vision, he also seeks reduced American commitments overseas … This is a paradox, but it is understandable. Mr. Obama is channeling the voters.” He understands, he says, and that is good.

He ends not by telling Obama that he presides over a hopelessly failed administration but by making a personal pledge of sort: “As a country we are going to be working harder than we wanted in a world that is more frustrating than we hoped.” And these are signs that maturity is taking roots in that man.

The George Will-Peggy Noonan Dichotomy

In an article published in the Washington Post, George Will asked: “Can NATO restrain Russia?” and the next day, Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “Mr. Putin's Revealing Speech.” She was not responding to Will but was expressing that she saw things from a position opposite to that of her counterpart. The Will article came down on March 27, 2014 without a subtitle whereas the Noonan article came down with the subtitle: “At the Kremlin, he makes the case for an increasingly aggressive Russia.” It was published on March 28, 2014.

Will makes no bones about what he means to say: Vladimir Putin has proved to be in league with Hitler; one of the worst bandits in all of human history. And he uses his entire article to draw parallels between what happened in the early to mid-parts of the Twentieth Century, and what is happening now in the early parts of the Twenty First Century. As to Noonan, she makes use of the Putin speech to describe a situation that makes the reader wonder if this is not more like a soap opera of epic dimensions.

What George Will is describing is revanchism in the sense that Russia lost some territory and is trying to take it back by force of arms like the dangerous kidnapper that should be dealt with harshly by America, the policeman of the world; and by NATO, his squad of special operations. But Noonan conveys the sense that this is a family feud which promises to run for several episodes with plenty of love-and-hate emotions generate among members of the family, and plenty of fear generated by the meddling of outside forces.

Come to think of it, Crimea was given as a gift to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev while Ukraine itself did not separate from the Russian Federation. Instead, it was Boris Yeltsin of the Federation that wanted to be free of the old Soviet Union, and when the other republics refused to break loose, he used a provision of the Soviet Constitution to break the Federation away from the other republics.

Well, this sounds more like a messy affair of separation, divorce and wooing back to the family nest than the definition of revanchism as given by some dictionaries. In fact, it sounds more like revanchism in the French sense of the word because the events are a testament to the rivalry that still exists between the two old camps of the Cold War than they are of a lost territory which Russia is trying to take back by force of arms.

And so, there should be no doubt that what is happening on the Eurasian Continent is a human drama that is played out not by individual characters, but by groups of various ethnic backgrounds and various languages; groups that lived together as a family for hundreds if not thousands of years. They tried separation, even divorce but in the end, came back to square one which is the uncertainty about what it is they really want to do.

What is complicating matters is the meddling by some members of the European Union as well as NATO, acting in a manner reminiscent of the old rivalry between that organization and its counterpart, the now dissolved Warsaw Pact. These members view the events unfolding on the Eurasian Continent through the same prism as that of George Will. They assert that the divorce between Russia and the old Republics is definitive, and that the latter have remarried to NATO and to the European Union. Where the marriage has not been consummated, as is the case with Ukraine and Georgia, it will soon be because it is how it must be.

As in all human affairs, it is how you view a situation that determines how you react to it, therefore what the ultimate outcome will be. In the Will-Noonan dichotomy, neither extreme would be a good choice to make, which is why the dichotomy must be rejected. Therefore, a case must be made for an alternative that will make it clear that no matter what happened to have caused the break-up of the old Soviet family, getting it back together by means that fall outside the norms established by international law is unacceptable.

But that does not mean if you're not a saint you're a demon. It simply means that Russia should not overreact, and that NATO and the European Union should not do anything that will provoke Russia. The situation must be handled with understanding, intelligence and deft.

Everyone should learn to be patient. Let time calm the raw emotions, and let it heal the wounds.

Did They Say Anticipate Revanchism?

Here is an opportunity for President Obama to crucify his crucifiers. Ever since he came to office, they have been saying he proceeded to do this thing or that one the wrong way. They kept doing this, having never anticipated something before it happened and, of course, having never said how the thing should be dealt with if and when it happens. In other words, they have been the void that constantly attacked what is there because it is there, yet remained immune to attacks because the void cannot be attacked.

Well, the void is not a void anymore because it now contains the mysterious word “revanchism;” a word they cannot deny is theirs and theirs alone. Yes, someone else may have invented it, but they were the ones to bring it into this debate. Among the few that used it have been the editors of the Wall Street Journal who wrote the editorial: “Obama's Uncertain Trumpet” which also came under the subtitle: “The American bows to European passivity on Putin.” It was published in the Journal on March 27, 2014.

A quick check on the word revanchism shows that it does not exist in most English dictionaries, and is not known to nearly 100 percent of Anglophones. But I recognized it because I speak French, and the word “revanche” is commonly used in the Francophone world. It is derived from the word revenge but does not necessarily convey the sense of vendetta. For example, in a game in three rounds where the winner of two of them wins the game, the second round is called: la revanche. Also, when talking about any subject, the term “en revanche” is often used to mean: on the other hand.

And the way that the word is used in the context of the geopolitical game being played at this time between America and Russia, conveys the sense that America won the first round when it caused the Soviet Union to dissolve, and that Putin has delivered the punch that won him the return round or “la revanche.” And this is the act of revanchism that President Obama should have anticipated, say his crucifiers. But now that they are using a word they never used before, Mr. Obama can say to them: Show me where you used that word before, and I'll accept that you correctly predicted what I did not see coming.

And because they cannot show they used the word before, they will not be able to criticize Mr. Obama for not being the prophet or the god they wish their President to be. Having crucified him before and having won the first round by ignoring the rules of the game, he has the opportunity to crucify them now, and score big in the return round. He can have his own revanche.

So now you think they learned their lesson and will anticipate what will happen next, describing it in precise terms so that when it happens, they will be able to say to their President: we told you so. But no, that's not what they do in their editorial. Instead, they criticized Mr. Obama for doing no more than deliver an address in Europe based on lawyerly logic, and for failing to argue for a robust strategy that would have the effect of deterring Russian aggression.

They do admit that President Obama had a plan to impose sanctions on Russia that would have been gradually ramped up as warranted by Russia's responses, but that the Europeans refused to go along with it in view of the wide ranging business dealings they have with Russia. So the question: What can an American president do in such circumstances? Well, Obama cooled matters without backing down on principles, yet the editors of the Journal lamented that he “yielded to European passivity.” But did they say in precise terms what else he should have done so that they may remind him later of what they told him? No, they did not say what could be done under the circumstances; they only had the gall to criticize Obama.

At this point, anyone with an average IQ would see that the situation has boiled down to this question: Should America risk a shooting war with Russia to defend European interests that the Europeans will not defend? This is what the new debate should be about, but what do the editors of the Journal do? They froth at the mouth all kinds of histrionics, lamentations, bellyaching, conjectures, speculations and what have you to end with this: “The Kremlin isn't dumb. If the off-ramp is always available and nothing stands in the road ahead, why get off the road at all?”

Well, if the Kremlin isn't dumb, this means it is smart. May a fraction of that smartness rub off on America's pundits who have dragged the country into a cesspool of ignorance and shallow thinking.

Beware the Feel-Good Artists and Others

The feel-good artists are coming to the surface out of nowhere, and they are coming up with the sort of articles they know have a good chance of crossing the desk of a receptive editor that will want to publish them. And they will be met by a receptive audience that will want to read them and enjoy them. Vladimir Putin is the new villain on the block, and writing that he presides over an economy that is going nowhere is a surefire winner because this is what people wish were true, and what they want to be told.

Most of the artists are amateurs who wouldn't know an economy from a hole dug up in the backyard by their dog. But the thing is that it became fashionable ten years ago to accuse everyone they disliked of presiding over a bad economy, and those who wished to participate in the debate but had nothing original to contribute, jumped on the bandwagon and started saying that the new villain had a bad economy – which is what motivated him to act so badly. And they got published and they got paid.

But once in a while comes an individual that looks like an artist, may even sound like one, but turns out to be knowledgeable in the subject of economics. He jumps on the bandwagon, may even lead it in badmouthing the economy of the new villain, but leaves the door open to say later that the bad economy has suddenly turned into a roaring one, and here are the reasons why. One such non-artist is Rushir Sharma who is head of emerging markets at Morgan Stanley Investment Management.

Sharma wrote an article under the title: “Putin's Potemkin Economy” and the subtitle: “There are few sources of income other than oil and gas, and wealthy Russians are moving $60 billion a year out of the country.” It was published in the Wall Street journal on March 24, 2013. When you read the article, you learn that Putin did perform an economic miracle during the first decade of this century, growing the per capita income of the Russian people from 1,500 dollars to 10,000 dollars. That's an average of almost 21 percent a year in that period of time.

Putin then preoccupied himself with other things, says Sharma, and the economy cooled off – perhaps because of that – but also to reflect what was happening everywhere else in the world, especially in Europe which is Russia's major trading partner. In fact, the writer reminds his readers that only last year, Forbes Magazine named Putin “world's most powerful person of the year,” having scored a string of successes on the geopolitical stage. What this means, in short, is that Putin has the Midas touch because he turns everything he touches into gold, thus greatly benefiting his beloved Russia.

So we ask: What does that mean in the context of the current situation? Well, it means that if Putin is motivated enough to turn his attention back to the economy; he can duplicate the success he scored before. And all the talk dished out by amateurs and professionals alike about a Russia that is having a bad economy may turn out to be the catalyst that will motivate Putin to once again turn his attention to the economy. And the moment is propitious because the world, including Europe, is coming out of its slump which will help Russia greatly.

And when you look at all the reasons listed by Sharma as to why the Russian economy is not doing well at this time, you find that nothing is as serious as to make Putin despair. In fact, to paraphrase the well known saying: a rising worldwide tide will lift all boats including the Russian. Add to this the Putin Midas touch, and the Russian boat has the potential to turn into a yacht of czarist luxury.

How could this come about? Well, Sharma says that “Before 2008, Russia was putting back to work the oil fields, factories and labor force that were idled by the collapse of the Soviet Union.” And he says that now: “While Russia has a relatively high rate of investment … the old Soviet roads and railways are deteriorating.” Surely then, Putin will want to start here. Add to this the fact that the Russian moguls who used to take 60 billion dollars out of Russia to invest in the West, have now been scared off, and have repatriated most of that money. They will have no choice but to reinvest it in Russia proper, and invest the surplus in the fast growing economies of the newly emerging powers. They will be swimming in money and so will Putin's Russia.

When all is said and done, the world will be looking at a Russia that is once again growing its GDP by 7 percent or better, and growing the income of its citizens by more than that. And Rushir Sharma will be there to write about Putin's second economic miracle.

NY Times: Okay to Kill Christians, Burn Churches

I am not for the death penalty and never have been. What follows is not condoning the death sentences handed down by an Egyptian court to a large number of people but a reflection of what I have suspected for sometime now which is that a group in America headed by a number of editorial writers at the New York Times and elsewhere would sacrifice the lives of 9 million or so Christians in Egypt to fulfill the Jewish dream of seeing the country burn to the ground ... thus fulfill a prophecy of the Jewish bible.

The evidence is all here in the editorial that came under the title: “Egypt's Miscarriage of Justice” and published on March 25, 2014. You get hit with the evidence in the face like a cannon ball in the very first paragraph: “the court verdict … for the killing of a single police officer...” The fact is that the death of the police officer was incidental to what happened.  And what happened was that the rioters who went on trial chose Minya to do their dastardly deeds because the city has a large Christian population, and a number of the most ancient and grandest churches.

The rioters knew that this will attract the attention of those who would back them in America not because they love Islam – they hate it – but because they hate the Christians as well, and they want to see the two fight each other to extinction as it almost happened in Lebanon under Israeli influence; as it almost happened in Iraq under American occupation; as it is happening in many places in sub-Saharan Africa where people are so poor, the evil hand of foreign instigators hire killers for little money, and push them to go on sectarian killing sprees.

And here is what the editors of the New York Times do to hide their intent while continuing to promote the idea of seeing Egypt burn to the ground: “The verdict … represents an escalation of the military-led government. It will further radicalize the group's members. And it will almost surely worsen instability in one of the Arab world's most important countries.” But the fact is that the government had nothing to do with this verdict where the interim President of the country came from the judiciary.

Furthermore the people at the Times and elsewhere who have been predicting a civil war in Egypt, and have time after time used the words “worsen” and “instability” to describe what is happening in the country when nothing of the sort is happening – are at it again using those same words as if they burned with the desire to psyche the sickos in Egypt to do them the big favor of destabilizing the country and make things worse.

Follow for a while what these horrible creatures say, and you will realize that their desire can become so strong at times; they begin to believe that the desire has become reality, and they speak of it as such.

Instigating internal dissent is the tool of the coward that cannot defeat an opponent on the battlefield. So then, what do creatures like the editors of the New York Times do to instigate internal descent? They speculate, but they cherry-pick what it is they speculate about. Here is an example: “It is impossible to know whether the court in the city of Minya where the verdicts were handed down was caught up in animosity against Mr. Morsi … or was acting on directions from security officials.” It was neither. It was the sight of burned up churches that revolted the people of that city, including the judges who decided on that verdict. They may have overreacted but there will be appeals and reviews before the conclusion of this matter.

What else do the demons at the New York Times do to send “a strong signal” or as they would say: “a strooong signal” to every sicko in Egypt that might read their editorial? What they do is highlight something that has nothing to do with the trial they pretend to be discussing. That something were the violations committed by some members of the military and the police a while ago, for which trials were held and a number of officers convicted.

The editors of the Times end with saying that other trials are pending about which they feel the chill. How about felling the chill concerning what they are themselves trying to do which is to instigate a sectarian civil war in Egypt where the scene will look like Iraq or Syria on steroid?

Alice Befuddled by the Bret Wonderland

Once in a while you encounter someone that has gotten so annoyed with himself holding the mask in front of his face, he decides to throw the mask away at least during the one occasion in which he seek to make points too difficult to express from behind a mask.

This is the spot where Bret Stephens finds himself standing as he tries to bludgeon Vladimir Putin of Russia for grabbing Ukrainian territory. In so doing, he collides with principles he trampled on during all his professional life as he tried to construct a philosophical and legal framework that would justify the Jewish grab of Palestinian lands. He never completed that task, and what he is doing now will end up turning his world so much upside down, Alice herself will feel befuddled by this lopsided version of Bret's Wonderland.

You can see the Stephens machinations in the article he wrote under the title: “Apologies for Vladimir” that could easily have read: “Apologies for Bibi,” and the subtitle: “Putin's seizure of Crimea gets an assist from foreign policy realists and postmodern liberals,” that could easily have read: “Bibi's seizure of West Bank territory gets an assist from Wall Street Journal types and from Victor Hanson disciples.” The article was published in the Wall Street Journal on March 25, 2014.

To set the stage for doing battle with Putin's apologists, he begins by putting down what those apologists say. First of all, they say that “Crimea itself is ethnically Russian.” This is a more powerful excuse than that of the Jews who insist they lived in Palestine thousands of years ago, and while they may no longer be of the Hebrew or Semitic race, they have a sentimental attachment to the land. Second of all, they say that “Crimea passed into Ukrainian hands through a Soviet bureaucratic maneuver.” This too is a more powerful excuse than to say Palestine passed into Jewish hands through British colonial bureaucratic maneuver, and Jewish terrorism.

Stephens goes on to say: “As for provocation, how could any Russian leader be indifferent to a Ukraine that sought to join NATO or the European Union?” So the question is this: How could any Arab – leader or commoner – be indifferent to a so-called Israel that says it may be located in the Middle East but its heart is in Europe and its mind in America?

Past that, Stephens says: “In this reading, the West's policies toward Russia have been a complex of patronizing lectures about democracy and good governance,” something that can be translated as follows to apply to the Middle Eastern situation: In this reading, Israel's policies toward its Arab neighbors, especially the Palestinians, have been the dishing out of a load of B.S. about a Jewish democracy that is more like savagery out the Stone Age. They have also been policies of trying to sell to the Arabs technical knowledge that the Jews knew less about than they knew about the hole in their anatomy.

Unhappy with the stance taken by the Vladimir Putin apologists, Stephens unloads on them: “Let's get a few things straight.” (1) “Russia does not need Ukraine as a territorial buffer,” which sounds like Israel does not need the settlements in occupied Jerusalem as a territorial buffer. (2) “A historic claim is not a valid claim,” which can be translated into: “Get those Jewish squatters out of there.” (3) “Ethnic claims aren't valid claims, either,” especially when the claim to Jewish ethnicity is a made-up bogus claim. (4) “Russia was not humiliated by the end of the Cold War,” which is meant to tell the Jews that the Palestinians did not humiliate them. Someone else may have done so, but they should not take it on the Palestinians. (5) “Crimea is not Iraq,” which sounds like the West bank is not the Promised Land. (6) “Neocons typically want to promote liberal democracy,” which is like saying the bloodthirsty settlers want to promote peace and harmony.

And so, our dear Bret Stephens ends his article by giving the American administration what he believes is good advice. He begins with a preface: “Putin is pursuing his own interest as ringleader in a corrupt oligarchy sitting on the economic time bomb that is a commodities-based economy,” which sounds like: Bibi is pursuing the interest of Jewish gambling moguls in a corrupt Atone Age setup living off the economic time bomb that is compensation-based and donation-based economy.

He goes on: “The best U.S. policy will be to light up the shortest fuse on that bomb, and contain the fallout,” which is meant to convey the notion: it is time to let Israel implode.

A New World Order or a Pipe Dream?

Victor Ponta who is the prime minister of Romania, has penned an article that was published in the March 21, 2014 issue of the Wall Street Journal under the title: “Forging a Trans-Atlantic Superpower” and the subtitle: “To defend the West, we must form a full-fledged EU-U.S. Economic union.” The remarkable thing about this piece is that it exposes the state of anxiety in which the former Eastern European countries now live, and the grand solutions they believe could save them from what lies ahead.

The anxiety is not caused by the fear they may be invaded by Russia as it is by the sense that the benefits accruing to them from their integration into the club of the Western Democracies may have run its course, and has reached a plateau after which very little will be added to their societies. He does not admit to any of that, of course, but he tries to make use of the security issue to argue for an economic policy he believes will benefit his country for a while longer as well as the other nations that left the Soviet orbit.

He begins his presentation with a thud: “The dramatic events in Ukraine illustrate a historic moral hazard.” He goes on to say that the hazard created a mindset which got the countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) to neglect their security. They were not ignorant of what was going on, he hastens to say, but their membership in the EU and in NATO made them believe – like everyone else – in the “end of history.” And so they turned complacent when it came to matters relating to national security.

Those matters out of the way, the leaders of the countries in the region spent their time settling old domestic scores, something that got them to lose the “instinct for thinking big,” he says. He then explains something that many of us old-timers knew too well. It is that Romania, of all the Eastern European nations, displayed megalomaniac tendencies of the most extreme kind under the reign of Ceausescu. He now begins to make his pitch for a new world order: “Only together do Europe and the U.S. stand a chance of keeping liberal democracy as the doctrine for organizing world affairs.” That's thinking big, alright, perhaps as big as the massive buildings that Ceausescu loved to build all over the country before his people shot him and his wife to death.

But Victor Ponta does not sound convincing when he talks about spreading liberal democracy around the world. He knows this will happen if and when the local people are ready for it, not when democracy is imposed on them from the outside. However, this kind of talk is what sells in America today, and so he links it to his favorite subject: the economy. He put it this way: “the recent events in Ukraine show that wielding power internationally depends on a player's ability to both impart and withstand economic shocks.” In other words, he is saying to America and to Western Europe: If you want the world to become liberal and democratic, you will have to strengthen your economies; something you can only do by fully integrating with us.

Here are his words: “The solution lies in deeper economic integration within the Western world … between Europe and the U.S. … The endgame is an Atlantic economic superpower … whose hard security would be guaranteed by NATO.” And make no mistake about it, dear reader, this is not something he thought about on the spur of the moment or even yesterday. It is something that has fully matured in his head over a long period of time; something for which he even worked out the details.

He missed nothing, and left none of the details to chance: “before we can begin to work toward full trans-Atlantic economic union, we must first...” He goes on to list and discuss conditions that range from dealing with the psychology of distrust among the citizens to economic fairness, the environment, social mobility and entrenched thinking on both sides.

When done with this, he promises that thinking big will return to these nations, and the “grand Western Project” will be realized. And Romania will be there, he says: “strong and dignified” shouldering its share of responsibility within the Atlantic superpower, throughout all stages of the project's coming into being.

What seems to escape this man is that Western Europe does not look forward to reviving the glory days of a bygone era. What these people seek is a steady state sort of existence that aims not to challenge and beat all the others, but to cooperate with them for the good of mankind. With the exception of a handful of backward looking hotheads in America, the average American today is beginning to think that way also.

If the Eastern Europeans want to continue thriving, they too will have to begin thinking along these lines.

One more Say about Global Warming

Much has been said about the warming of the planet, and I already described what scientific experiment must be conducted to prove or disprove that carbon dioxide is the culprit. This has not been done yet as far as I know. But whatever the culprit, there is another aspect to the subject matter that we can examine mathematically to get a sense of what we're looking at. It would be the question as to whether or not human activities contribute to the warming of the planet.

Well, the answer is yes, human activities do contribute to the warming of the planet. For example, when you light a match, the heat that was in it is now liberated. The science of physics says that the act will contribute to the warming of the planet. But the question is this: How much will it contribute as compared to the heat that the planet receives from the sun? By the same token, how much do all human activities contribute to the warming of the planet – what you might call heat pollution? We shall, for now, ignore the heat that comes from the processes undergoing inside the planet which cause things like volcanic lava and geothermal steam to erupt.

To evaluate the amount of heat that comes from the sun as compared to what human activities produce, we can do a crude experiment and a thought experiment. Combining results from the two, we can get – not an accurate answer – but a sense of the dimensions we are dealing with.

The first thing we observe is that the total consumption of energy resources by the entire planet comes to the approximate equivalent of 1.5 million tons of oil every hour. Since a ton of oil yields about 10,000 kw/h of heat, the consumption of resources comes to the equivalent of about 15 billion kw/h.

To see how that compares to what comes from the sun, we go out on a summer day when there is no wind, and expose the back of the hand to the sun for a few minutes. We feel the heat, and try to replicate that feeling with a controlled experiment whose data we can measure. Seeing that the back of a human hand is a square of about 4x4 inches or 10x10 centimeters, we calculate that the average human hand has a surface area of about 100 square centimeters.

We now think up an experiment in which we use light produced by an incandescent light bulb to replicate the heat sensation we felt coming from the sun. To this end, we construct a square kind of bell that has the dimensions 10x10 centimeters at the base – the same dimensions as the back of the human hand. We give the inside of the bell a reflective coating and place the light bulb inside it to shine light on the back of the hand.

After a few trials and errors, we find that it takes a bulb of 100 watts to replicate what we felt from the sun. This means that every square centimeter of the hand is receiving 1 watt of heat from the light bulb. It also means that a direct exposure to the sun has the effect of subjecting a square centimeter of the earth to 1 watt of heat equivalent. To digress for a moment, only a tenth of that is usually converted into electricity by solar cells.

We now seek to find how much solar energy hits the earth. Because the earth is a rotating sphere, only one spot near the equator receives the full force of the sun's energy. That force diminishes as we move away from the spot, but we don't have to worry because we can imagine slicing the earth to expose a flat circle that faces the sun permanently. Whatever energy the circle receives is how much energy will be shared by the entire planet, whatever its shape and however much it rotates.

So we begin to calculate. The circle has a radius of about 6366 kilometers or 636.6 million centimeters. Its surface area will be 1273 quadrillion square centimeters; and will receive 1273 quadrillion watts of heat energy per hour from the sun, which translates into 1273 trillion kw/h. This is about 84,867 times as much as the earth currently consumes in all forms of energy.

Now that we have this ratio, we deduce that a day's worth of sun energy is equivalent to 84,867 days of non-renewable energy or 233 years worth of heat pollution.

And that is not something to worry about in my opinion.

Drumbeat of a Tired Drummer Going Nowhere

Every construct becomes a double edged sword when used in an operation that contradicts the purpose for which it was designed. If the construct is a physical conception such as a baseball bat or a bathtub, it can be used as intended and do good things for its user or it can be used in a manner that was not intended, thus hurt or kill its user or do the same to someone else.

Likewise, a philosophical or moral construct can be used to do good things, or it can be used to do bad things. Democracy is one such construct that is both moral and philosophical. It can be used as intended and do good things for its practitioner or it can be abused in a way that was never intended, and result in causing bad things to its practitioner, and perhaps to someone else as well.

For example, some things are not meant to be spoken in front of a child by the parents because the child will most certainly repeat those things in front of strangers. Likewise, every nation has secrets that must never be debated in public lest they be used by domestic or foreign enemies to harm the nation. And so, in a democracy where the right of the public to know competes with the right of the nation to keep some secrets, the line separating the two becomes difficult to draw in the best of times, and almost impossible to maintain when the trust between the government and the press has diminished.

In fact, much has happened in America during the last fifty years to diminish the trust between the government and the press with the unfortunate side effect that the dispute has affected the public in a way that was unexpected. Instead of engaging the public in a useful debate, the dispute caused the nation to turn apathetic toward the whole business of disseminating information. It stayed away from it altogether, leaving it up to the government and the press to whip up a legal framework that may eventually benefit both parties but do so at the expense of the public.

Domestic issues are usually the sort of concerns that can be deal with easily unless they touch on a subject that involves national security. But when it comes to a foreign issue, the subject has the potential to cause heated debates because no matter how innocuous an issue may look on the surface, it will always contain a national security angle. This can be seen in the John Bolton article: “One Korea, one less problem,” published in the Pittsburgh Tribune on March 15, 2014.

Of all the Jewish writers in the English language, John Bolton has been for many years the most vociferous advocate of a hawkish militaristic foreign policy. And he never shied away from saying that when it comes to choosing between spending the available money on bread to feed the nation, or spending it on guns to shoot someone abroad, he would choose the guns any time, every time, all the time.

But time being a great teacher, it taught Bolton the simple lesson that his kind of extremism was getting him nowhere and never will. Thus, he softened his position by curtailing the emphasis on the need to spend more money on armament, and by dropping the idea that America should go it alone on every mission which aims to solve the world problems. If America must have the support of someone, let them be members of the Western alliance such as NATO. This being the rule, there is an exception to it as we shall see in a moment.

It is that despite that lesson, Bolton's main preoccupation remains unchanged. What consumes him is that America remain mobilized at the highest level to see to it that Israel receives what it needs and more. But instead of saying so openly or advocating the bombing of a neighbor such as Iran – which he used to do incessantly – he now takes a longer run, and a more subtle one to make those points. Thus, he advocates the involvement of China in the effort to deal with North Korea's nuclear weapons so as to make the link with Iran's nuclear ambitions – something he does very deftly at the end of the article.

The old fire is still in his belly, however, and so he feels compelled to land a punch bellow the belt to his nemesis, Barack Obama, early in the article ... before proceeding with the rest of the presentation. He thus asserts: “This childlike, willful blindness is especially misguided in Pyongyang's case.” What he does after that shows with absolute clarity (to everyone but himself) why the so-called Western Liberal Democracies can only be in one of two states. Either they conquer other nations and subjugate them, or they turn into warring fiefdoms ruled by religious dogma and fantasy – something for the world to laugh at.

Unable to grasp the simple principle that a big nation like China may not like what it sees happening inside its North Korean neighbor and still do little or nothing to change the situation, he fails to see the wisdom in restraining the self because most of the time, interfering would lead to the worst of all possible outcomes. This is something that the leaders of most nations know instinctively except for the Western Liberal Democracies that have tried to play policeman of the world, and got their noses rubbed in the mud time after time.

And now that John Bolton has decided to deal with the Chinese in an effort to incite them to turn against the North Koreans, he uses the same approaches he has used on America's politicians. He tells the Chinese leaders they are doing the wrong thing, and he urges someone else – the Americans Kerry, Obama, maybe even Bush – to tell them they are doing the wrong thing. To that end, he reminds the Chinese that they “said repeatedly [they] oppose Pyongyang's nuclear program.” And he shames them: “China has done almost nothing to stop North Korea's weapons capabilities.” As to the Americans, he says this: “Kerry's statements underline the unreality of Washington's North Korean policy. Neither Obama nor Bush pressed China to do what it alone can do: put pressure on Pyongyang.”

Not realizing that this alone is enough to “turn off” the Chinese leaders from wanting to hear the rest of his message, he goes on to commit the biggest sin of all. He speculates as to what the motives of the Chinese leaders may be in refraining from doing what they must do. In the process, he may truly reveal some of the weaknesses that plague the Chinese system, or he may only put those ideas “out there” for every pundit that has nothing better to do, to exercise their “liberal democratic” right of adding to the confusion.

As if to shatter your illusion that he could not do worse than that, he does. He speaks of a split in the Chinese leadership along the generational line – which is a no, no in a culture where age is venerated more than anything else. Bolton put it this way: “many younger Chinese leaders realize that North Korea is no longer a strategic asset.” What do you believe the older Chinese leaders will think of that?

He goes on to make a few more idle speculations to finally come to his favorite part: “Considering both North Korea and Iranian advances in nuclear technology and ballistic missiles, the worldwide proliferation threat is rising rapidly.”

The worst part is that deep down, he believes he has motivated the Chinese leaders enough to have them jump in front of the television cameras and bark something to the effect that they will not allow the North Koreans to cross this line, walk over that ridge or march across the zone over there.

What John Bolton and those like him will never understand is that the Chinese will not be ruled by democratic fantasies anymore than they will be by religious dogma.

WSJ Openly Advocating Genocide

When I started talking about Jewish moral syphilis being ejaculated into the heads, the hearts and the souls of Americans, some correspondents asked me to explain in what way that was a serious problem. All I could do was to show the consequences of that reality by discussing the ideas that people who were clearly under Jewish influence came up with, and the conclusions they reached.

Well, here now is the most convincing evidence that Jewish moral syphilis can be a very bad thing. What we have is an editorial written by the group that does lobbying for the Jewish and Israeli causes at the Wall Street Journal. The piece has the title: “A Jewish State” and the subtitle: “Why John Kerry's Palestine diplomacy is failing.” It was published in the Journal on March 21, 2014.

Their concern centers on the trick that Netanyahu came up with some time ago to torpedo the peace negotiations right after reaching an agreement that both sides were willing to sign. It was not the first time that the Israelis had pulled a trick of this kind at the last minute, which is the reason why the negotiations have been ongoing for two decades with no end in sight. And it was during these decades that the heavily armed Jews have repeatedly massacred the unarmed Palestinians, and have robbed them of their lands, their waters, as well as the internal organs of their murdered children.

The trick this time is to make it a condition that the Palestinians recognize Israel as being a Jewish state. No, said the Palestinians as did the Arabs through their League. Call yourselves what you want, they said to the Israelis, and we shall each call ourselves what we want. In fact, everyone on this planet since the beginning of time have called themselves what they want but have never asked or have forced someone to call them one thing or another.

And this is what the editors of the Wall Street Journal are blowing their entrails out trying to convince John Kerry to make the indispensable ingredient without which the peace negotiations cannot be completed. And this is how they put it: “To Israeli ears and to ours, the League's rejection of a Jewish state exposes the deep insincerity of the Arab world's approach to peace.” What they are trying to do is use on the Arabs the tactics they have used to turn the American Congress into one of male and female bimbos. The trick consists of asking for what they want; if they don't get it, they accuse the other party of something – usually insincerity. The Americans knuckled under each time; the Arabs told the Jews to go fly a kite.

In addition, the Arabs did not have to be students of the American scene to know that the Jews would establish what looks like an innocuous principle, and get a “unanimous and bipartisan vote on it.” They will then use that principle months, years, and even decades later to extract something precious from America. Sometimes they get lucky and discover something in the books they can use as precedent to extract a few more things with which to construct a pipeline that guarantees a steady stream of goodies coming to them from America.

Look now what they believe they have discovered in that thing they call “Jewish state.” The editors of the Journal write this: “As Mr. Kerry pointed out, Resolution 181 [of the UN] refers to a Jewish State ... The late Yasser Arafat said that he accepted Israel as a Jewish state.” So why do they want the Palestinians and the Arab League to accept this condition before ending the occupation when they have been savagely badmouthing both the UN and Arafat for decades?

Surprisingly, they give an answer to that question: “Mr. Abbas won't accept a Jewish state because doing so means relinquishing what Palestinians call the 'right of return.'” But this is a lie because there is already agreement on this point in the form of who will be allowed to return, and who will receive compensation. But that is not what World Jewry and what the Israelis fear. What they fear is this: “For Israel to accept it would risk a demographic time bomb.” How might this happen?

Here is how. Twenty percent of Israel's current population is made of Christian and Muslim Arabs who make more babies than do the Jews. In addition, more Jews leave Israel now than there are Jews going into it. The expectation is that this trend will become much worse because those who go to live there are American misfits who settle in the Palestinian territories. A peace treaty with the Palestinians will shut that door – all of which means that Israel will empty of its Jewish population in the blink of an eye. Thus, to have the newly formed Palestine and the Arabs guarantee that Israel shall remain a Jewish state, guarantees that they will take from Israel a corresponding number of Christians and Muslims. Failing this, the Jews will have the right to deal with the situation any way they see fit. No, said the Palestinians. No, said the Arab League. Insincere, whined the Wall Street Journal. Go fly a kite, say the Arabs.

This is genocide by any name. It is what the editors of the Wall Street Journal are advocating. It is the result of decades of Jewish syphilis being ejaculated into their heads, their hearts and their souls.

Guardian Angel with Horns and a Tail

Melanie Phillips lives in Britain and has a website she calls Guardian Angel. She wrote an article that was published in the Wall Street Journal which, upon reading it, most people will come to view her as having the horns and tail of a demon rather than the wings of an angel. The article is titled: “The Failure of the Mideast 'Peace Process'” and the subtitle: “The U.S. and Britain present themselves as Israel's friends. Israel doesn't quite see it like that.” It was published in the Journal on March 20, 2014.

She begins the article by going way, way, way out of her way to ascertain in no uncertain terms that the peace process is dead. This has been the Jewish strategy since the start of that process decades ago for, the Jewish song has always been: “Give us the tools and we'll do the job.” It meant to tell the Americans and anyone who would listen: Give us the money and the weapons, and we'll slaughter the Palestinians because we can, we'll kill the Arabs when we can, and we'll do with the Muslims what we can.

In the meantime, the Jews have been using the peace process as a cover under which they work hard to steal Palestinian land and water while crying their eyes out claiming to always make concessions to the Palestinians. But the truth is that the latter never got back one inch of their stolen land or one drop of their stolen water. And the Jews manage to do all that, and get away with it because they have an army of Jewish and gentile running dogs who run around the globe where they write articles, talk to the audio-visual media, and lecture from podiums to incite their audiences against the Palestinians. They tell those who listen to them they must take a bellicose stance toward their Palestinian victims, and they must urge their respective governments never to let the Palestinians obtaining weapons with which to defend themselves.

Having done her part to render the peace process ineffective by declaring it dead, Melanie Phillips does the very Jewish thing of biting the hands that feed her in order to be given more to feed on, and more to feed her kind. She begins at home (Britain) which she considers to be a home away from home since in her mind; Israel is her “homeland.”  Thus, she attacks Mr. Cameron's government that “played a key role in the EU's provocative decision to label goods made in the disputed [stolen] territories, even issued warnings to British companies over the risks of doing business there.” And you can tell how provoked she must have been to call stolen lands disputed territories.

And that was only biting the British hands. Now comes the turn to bite the American hands. That's how this one is done: “More important … President Obama … issued a veiled threat that if Israel did not accept the Kerry framework, the U.S. would no longer defend Israel at the U.N. and elsewhere.” But that's not all because John Kerry must also feel her bite. Thus, she mentions that he warned if Israel stymied the peace process, it will face a powerful worldwide delegitimization campaign.

By now, poor Melanie realizes that the situation is hopeless, and she cannot argue successfully that the whole world is wrong whereas Israel alone is right. What to do? Well, there is only one thing to do, and it is the thing that Jews had thousands of years of experience doing. Actually it is one thing that is made of two parts. The first part is to do the bellyaching routine like this: “while Netanyahu has accepted the prospect of a Palestinian state ,,, the Palestinians will never accept that Israel is a Jewish state.” The second part is to shift the blame for what has gone wrong onto the shoulders of someone else. It is done like this: “He [Abbas] insists on the right of the Palestinians to return to Palestine.”

At this point in the emotional and the thinking processes of a Jew, something kicks in that tells the world these people are so suicidal, they don't realize it when they beg humanity to implement some form of a final solution. Thus, with an army of running dogs like herself running around the globe and barking their anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim incitement, Melanie Phillips has the gall to accuse the Palestinians of inciting against Israel when they complain about the treatment that the Israelis inflict on them, and when they give their dead a proper burial with the eulogy that is given to every soldier regardless of his accomplishments.

She now comes full circle to once again attack (a) the peace process, (b) the US and the UK which seem too attached to the process and (c) the Western culture upon which the American and British liberal fallacies are based – one of them being the rule of law; in this case the international law. She does that because she wants to say that the armed-to-the-teeth Jews who come from around the world to steal Palestinian lands are the victims, and that the unarmed Palestinians who are sitting ducks are the aggressors.

Actually, she wants to say that, but she has a problem. It is that these things have been said before, and had only one effect – the people who heard them anywhere on this planet got sick to the stomach knowing that their home planet is infested with such a mentality. So then, what can she do to get around that? Well, for one thing, she does not mention the Palestinians. In fact, she does not mention anyone to begin with. Instead, she speaks in abstract terms about a peace process that is negotiated between aggressor and victim. After some philosophical babble that is neither here nor there, she reaches the conclusion that the “process is innately inimical to justice, and biased in favor of the aggressor in a conflict.”

Okay, so now you believe you know what she is going to say. You guess she will say that the aggressors are the demonic Palestinians, and that justice is aborted when the angelic Jews are blamed for what goes wrong. But you get the surprise of your life because the following is what she hits you with: “This is what happened in the Northern Ireland peace process.” What? Ireland?

Yes, Ireland. She goes on to discus events that unfolded long ago, and calls the outcome an “institutionalized protection racket.” But where's the beef? Where's Palestine, Melanie? Oh yeah, there is that thing. She almost forgets about it because she could not think of a way to say Palestine without stirring the bile of the readers.

But she must connect all that gibberish to the situation in the Middle East so that Israel may continue to receive the “tools” that will allow it to do the “job.” How to make the connection? Well, here is an idea. Don't mention the Palestinians at all. Say the following instead: “For Northern Ireland, the process was a Faustian pact. For Israel, the stakes are higher.”

An Incredibly Honest Publication by the WSJ

It is both astounding and refreshing to see the Wall Street Journal get back to the good old days of publishing pieces based on their merit and not their partisan orientation. It has done so with the article that was written by William A. Galston under the title: “The Economic Roots of American Retreat” and the subtitle: “Enduring a jobless recovery has discouraged many from supporting a robust U.S. foreign policy.” The article was published in the Journal on March 19, 2014.

Galston looks at the numbers, tells what they are, and makes a preliminary assessment as to what they mean without getting into wild speculation, and without constructing elaborate theories that might lead to conclusions benefiting one philosophical stance or the other. Only in the end, does he venture to make a few non-partisan observations that may benefit both sides of the argument. In the meantime, he gives the reader an explanation as to the reasons for that title and that subtitle, with the numbers that he cites in the first paragraph.

He begins with the fact that a survey has found that 56 percent of the American public says it is more important for America to minimize its involvement in the Ukrainian crisis than to stand up to Russia's actions. He then cites another poll which shows that 57 percent of the American public believes America is still in recession. Those two numbers are so close; the inescapable conclusion is that if there is an American retreat in foreign policy, it is that the public wants to devote more attention to domestic matters, and less to foreign issues.

Galston emphasizes that point by doing no more than suggest: “people are cautious, and 12 years of costly wars have intensified that caution.” This leads him to the inevitable conclusion that the attitude “it's time for nation-building at home” will prevail against foreign challenges that do not seriously threaten the country. This also means that until the people feel America is strong at home, they will continue to reject supporting the idea of their country guaranteeing global security.

He leaves it at that for the political hacks to make of it what they want, and he moves on to something else. To explain the discrepancy that exists between the numbers which say the GDP has grown enough by 2011 to exceed the peak level of 2007 – and between the feeling that the Great Recession has not yet ended, he cites the fact that the number of jobs has not regained its previous level. To make that point clear, he begins with the observation that at the start of an economic recovery, hiring used to begin 2 or 3 months after the rise in production. This is called the lag time between the recovery and the hiring.

That lag time has changed, says Galston, and he shows how by citing another set of numbers. He tells that after the 1990-91 recession the lag time stretched to 10 months. The time stretched further to 16 months after the 2001 recession. And it has stretched once more to something like 36 months after the Great Recession. He goes on to say that something fundamental has changed regarding that lag time, but does not explain why.

He only says that this reality has contributed to the feeling the recession has not ended. He then cites another set of numbers that also contributed to the feeling. It is that the standard of living for most people has eroded. He shows how this happened gradually between 2008 and 2013 when it barely began to inch upward. Putting all the numbers and the ideas together, he cites the fact that “Median household income today is barely higher than it was a quarter-century ago in 1989.”

He explains why the above has happened by saying that there has been a shift in the structure of the American economy. He tells that wages in America have fallen from 55 percent to 50 percent of the national income. Total compensation fell from 66 percent to 61 percent. At the same time, however, the after-tax profit of corporations that used to oscillate between 5 percent and 7 percent of GDP, have surged to an all-time high of 10 percent.

Only now does William Galston make the connection between the reality that is shown by the numbers, and the general feeling that is expressed by the population. He says: “During the Cold War, [we] were sustained by the belief and the fact that we were all in it together.” He explains with the following set of numbers. Between 1967 and 1984 the share of the national income had not changed in that 17 percent or so of the national income went to the top 5 percent of the population, and another 17 percent went to the middle fifth (indicating the middle 20 percent of the population also known as a “quintile”).

The feeling of being in it together has now changed, he says, because the numbers have changed. He tells that the income of the top 5 percent has risen from 17 to 22 percent of the national income while that of the middle fifth has fallen from 17 to 14 percent.

He ends by saying that members of both political parties in America believe the country should be engaged overseas economically, diplomatically, and when necessary militarily too. But he observes that this cannot be done without the support of the American people who want to see an improvement in their lives, and see the enhancement in opportunity for their children. This will necessitate the rebuilding of a growing economy whose fruits will be widely shared.