The Prism through which they see the World

The best way there is to know how someone grew up is to listen to them tell how a third party should be treated. If you get acquainted with someone, and you detect in them a definite attitude as to how other people should be treated, you know this is the treatment they have themselves received while growing up.

It applies whether you work with someone; whether you just met someone socially, or even if you're a teacher and have a student or two constantly passing judgment on other students, and telling you how you should treat them. What is also true is that individuals of a certain culture have tendencies of varying degrees to advocate how someone else should be treated. If you see that the same tendency is repeated in a number of them, you can be certain this is a trait of their culture.

I have lived in Canada for half a century, and the most powerful influence here has been the culture next door; that of the United States of America. And as the culture down there kept transforming, so have the winds of change blown the evolving tendencies in our direction. But while most people interpret what comes from south of the border as being simply American, the more attentive minds can discern which developments are caused by what segments of the American culture.

Given my personal circumstances and what I have encountered since early on during my stay in Canada, the influence of one particular segment of the American society has been of interest to me more than any other. That was the Jewish influence. It happened because the work that the Jewish organizations were doing in America was not restricted to that country but was systemic at its core and global in nature. Thus, the work that was done in America was done in Canada – sometimes a little differently to suit a slightly different circumstance  – and echoes of it was reverberating everywhere else in the world that I was able to study.

The one thing that was pronounced and remained constant throughout the time that I have been studying the Jewish phenomenon in America is the role that fear has been playing in that culture. From a confident America where people walked with their heads high because of who they were, they have transformed into fearful little things running around accusing each other of not repeating often enough that they are exceptional. It is as if the repetition of the word – like the recitation of the rosary – was going to take them closer to the heavens where they will sit with the gods of admiration and world respect, thus become one with them.

Inciting America to use fear as a tool of foreign policy has been almost everywhere that a Jew put pen to paper, and I discussed several such instances on this website. But nothing has been as powerfully expressive of that tendency as the editorial of April 28, 2014 published in the Washington Post under the title: “Obama's half-measures give Vladimir Putin little to fear”. As far as I know, this is the first time that an iconic American publication has used the word fear in the title of an editorial concerning a country that may no longer be a full-fledged superpower but remains one militarily.

After the introduction and after telling what they have observed, the editors of the Post get to deplore what they see; they get to lament what they dislike, and get to make recommendations as to what ought to be done next. They deplore this: “the [Obama] administration did not want to act without the European Union, which announced its own minimalist sanctions.” They lament this: “the U.S. sanctions policy is 'calibrated' less toward rescuing Ukraine than toward … set back U.S. economic growth.” And they tell what must be done now: “Those motives ought to be trumped by the imperative of standing against forcible change of borders in Europe.” In other words, they say that Obama must choose to frighten Putin even if he must further starve the unemployed Americans and their families.

And the Post editors finally express their frustration at the fact that things are not going their way – the Jewish way. This is how they do it: “By choosing not to use the economic weapons at his disposal and broadcasting that restraint to the world, Mr. Obama is telling Mr. Putin as well as other[s] ... that they continue to have little to fear from the United States.”

And this last part is what the Jewish organizations have been telling the world means not the United States of all Americans but the United States of Jewish America.

Moral Compass of the Wall Street Journal

It is said that if you want to know where the moral compass of a publication (such as the Wall Street Journal) is pointing, look at the sort of opinion articles that its editors choose to publish. And we have two good examples of that in the April 29, 2014 edition of the Journal.

The first article has the title: “Busting Insider Trading: As Pointless as prohibition” and the subtitle: “Just as Americans found ways to keep drinking, Wall Street will always look for an edge.” It was written by Henry G. Manne who is retired dean of a law school. The second article has the title: “Germany Turns Against the West on Russia” and the subtitle: “Angela Merkel meets with Obama this week and says she's on America's side. But some think she's being played by Vladimir Putin.” It was written by John Vinocur.

The gist of the Manne article is that there is a kind of equivalence between the effort to eradicate alcohol consumption and the effort to eradicate insider trading. He says both are pointless efforts because they are futile attempts to accomplish the impossible. And why is that? Because, in the case of insider trading, “there is simply too much money sloshing around waiting for an edge.”

Manne then draws the parallel between the history of Prohibition and that of busting insider trading by giving detailed accounts of the sort of efforts that went into both situations. The one to ban the consumption of alcohol failed, he says, because the “massive criminalization of a generally benign activity became too scandalous even for the pious moralists who fueled the drive for prohibition.”

And then, with a sense of yearning which he does not disguise, he goes on to say this: “Perhaps the same will happen with insider trading … The imagination of wealth seekers in using valuable information will always outpace the ability of regulators to cope.” To close, he makes this astonishing point: “The case for outlawing insider trading is even weaker … Insider trading not only does no harm, it can have significant social and economic benefits.”

And so you wonder if he understands that trading in assets is always a zero-sum game. What someone makes on the stock markets is what someone else loses. The one that wins by cheating commits the crime of hurting the one that does not cheat. And for the retired dean of a law school to take a stance such as this is truly scandalous. But that's not the only thing to alarm you because this stance is also that of the prestigious business publication, the Wall Street Journal.

As to the Vinocur article, this author is writing about another author named Winkler who wrote an essay in which he “expressed alarm about a current rise in German sentiment showing understanding for Vladimir Putin.” Vinocur writes that Winkler has written: “this trend is creating new doubts about Germany's calculability.”

He tells of the upcoming meeting between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and US President Barack Obama regarding the situation involving Russia and Ukraine. His view of Merkel is that she wants to be friends with everyone because it is good for business. In fact, he mocks her with the sally: “we're in the money.” Aside from that, Vinocur makes clear that the German Chancellor is where the German people are … on the fence between East and West, between Russia and America.

And this prompts Vinocur to ask the question: “Could anything come out of the Merkel-Obama meeting?” And he answers by making a bizarre point which he says was whispered to him by someone called Michael Naumann. Apparently the point made is that the German people are afraid of Russia, and Putin knows this. And so, Vinocur predicts that America will have to face Russia alone.

Whatever “face Russia” means, it is obvious that the editors of the Wall Street Journal are okay with it. So here we have a situation in which the Journal says: let them rob each other all they want on Wall Street. But when it comes to Germany trading the value added of her workers against the raw materials of Russia, watch out because America will have to face that situation with stern actions.

Where is your moral compass, Wall Street Journal?

Anatomy of a Peace Maker's Crucifixion

The American Secretary of State, John Kerry said something mild about a situation in Palestine that is in reality far worse. And a volcano of molten lead that is in the belly of every fanatic Jew exploded in rage. The lava poured out their mouths calling for Kerry's hide when all that he did was warn that if Israel continues to sabotage every effort to end the occupation of Palestine, it will become an apartheid state.

The reality, however, is that Israel is now and has always been a terrorist state far worse than anything the planet has ever seen. Israel is that and only that, being the product of a murderous ideology that has been disguising itself as a religion for thousands of years. It is headed by a god they describe as a general of war; one that gave them a book of history and worship soaked in blood from cover to cover.

After the last of the holocausts that humanity has inflicted on these creatures to protect itself from their evil deeds, they developed the strategy of erupting like a concerted bunch of volcanoes every time that someone came along and tried to show them the way to a peaceful existence. But in the way that they crucified the first of peace-makers, they tried to crucify everyone that came after him. In modern times, Jimmy Carter, the former President of the United States, and now John Kerry have become targets.

The people who followed that history during the past few decades could tell it will all come to that, having witnessed the way that the Jews reacted to the Palestinian women and children who tried to protect their homes from being demolished. The Israeli army had sent its American-made tanks to demolish those homes, and the women came out accompanied by their children to do the only thing they could, which was to throw stones at the tanks in the hope of stopping them.

But unlike China during the Tienanmen Square uprising when a single man forced a column of tanks driven by human beings to stop, the Israeli tanks, driven by animals disguised as humans, moved ahead and demolished the homes to begin the process of confiscating the land. And those animals, now calling themselves Jews, sent their emissaries to New York where they erupted their abdominal volcanoes with the cry: “They throw stones at our soldiers … oh pity me, pity me.” And the Congress of rats in America pitied them and sent them more money and more tanks. And the Jewish mayor of New York at the time called the Palestinian women and children the scum of the Earth.

It is no wonder, therefore, that on April 27, 2014, the Boston Globe published a column by Jeff Jacoby under the title: “Kansas killer a throwback, but anti-Semitism still thrives.” And the next day, Jonathan S. Tobin wrote a piece under the title: “Kerry's Apartheid Slur Sabotages Peace” and had it published in the magazine Commentary.

Talking about the Kansas incident and comparing it to the “Shoah of 70 years ago” when Europe staged its latest attempt to exterminated the Jews, Jacoby says nothing to recall a book that was published a number of years ago in which it was demonstrated that Hitler was not alone but that the entire nation of Germany – reflecting all of Europe at the time – was full of “Hitler's Executioners.” That is, all of Europe was happy to see the Jews vanish. Why?

Instead of doing some serious thinking, Jacoby dismisses that history with the characteristic Jewish trivial quip: “Hitler's purpose in exterminating the Jews was for the Jews to be exterminated.” Do you now wonder why this sort of thing keeps happening? Here you have a John Kerry trying to start a serious conversation in search of profound conclusions, and here you have those things – calling themselves Jewish thinkers and leaders of the Jewish people – flush the entire conversation down the tube with silly little things which, in their minds loom large like a mountain of Jewish wisdom.

As for the Tobin piece – after calling Kerry's remark a slur, as he did in the title, and saying for the trillionth time it is what sabotages the peace process – Tobin delivers his most glorious example of Jewish thinking. Guess what that is. In case you could not guess, here it is: “Kerry exploded the notion that he is an evenhanded broker since he is effectively rationalizing, if not justifying the next intifada as well as the continued effort to sanction Israel.” Intifada being the revolt of the Palestinians to free themselves of the occupation; and the effort to sanction Israel being a worldwide movement, Tobin says that for America to finally stand on the side of history turns it into a biased broker.

And so you ask a very serious question: How many on this planet will shed a genuine tear the next time that a Shoah is inflicted on these people? I guarantee you it will not be many because this time, most of humanity will have become honorary executioner of that man 70 years ago with his picture tattooed on every shoulder and every chest.

You are begging for that day, Jacoby. You are begging for it, Tobin.

They want the old Wine in a new Bottle

You start reading an article and it bores silly because the content is a rehash of things that were said before and debunked almost instantly. You decide you're not going to respond to this piece because there must be something better out there requiring your attention. And then, you hit on a passage in the article that has an effect on you similar to a tornado lifting you in the air and slamming you against a brick wall at a hundred miles an hour. And you say to yourself: I got to write about this.

That notorious article has the title: “Demand-Side Policy gave Us the Big Economic Fizzle” and the subtitle: “The unstimulating stimulus ignored basic principles of economic incentives.” It was written by Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute, and published in the Wall Street Journal on April 28, 2014. The passage that jolted me came near the end, and reads like this: “If private business had not produced $14.1 trillion, consumers could not possibly have consumed $11.1 trillion. Economies do not grow because consumers spend more; consumers can spend more only if economies grow,” which made me think: What are they trying to do now?

The purpose of the Reynolds article is to show that the politics of supply-side is better than the politics of demand-side. To this end, the author attacks all that the current administration, and all that the Fed have done since 2009 ... to then conclude that: “demand-side has encouraged families and firms to spend … A supply-side solution would incentivize families and firms to produce more income and wealth by minimizing regulation, trade barriers, unreliable money and dispiriting tax rates.”

Aside from that short passage which gives a glimpse as to how Reynolds thinks, you encounter a great deal of fluffed up rhetoric which means very little. Here is an example of that: “Demand-side economists focus on incentives to borrow and spend. Supply-side economists focus on incentives to work, save, invest and launch new businesses. Demand-side economists focus on the uses of income and debt (consumption). Supply-side economists focus on sources of income and wealth.” Putting all that aside, you look at the rest of the article and try to piece together his theory as to why the economy has not been growing at a faster rate.

You notice early on that he asks the question: Did fiscal or monetary stimulus actually “stimulate demand”? Which tells you right away that he acknowledges the secret to growth is higher demand. And in trying to answer the question, he makes the point that the administration and the Fed went about achieving that goal the wrong way. This does not demolish the theory that demand is key to growth; it simply says that he believes the supply-side remedy can do a better job. So you want to know how that would work according to him.

He explains this part by showing where the Fed and the administration did the wrong things. He says that the fed pushed the interest rates down; a move that had the effect of subsidizing “big borrowers (governments and banks) at the expense of small savers (seniors).” This is a mind blowing admission put this bluntly perhaps for the first time. It says that in America, there has been a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. As to the fiscal stimulus – what the administration did that was wrong – he quotes all sorts of reports, and displays all sorts of percentages to show that the stimulus did work but not as well as it could have.

He does not explain how supply-side would have produced a higher growth since 2009 given what the economy was going through. What he does, instead, is attack what he calls the “deficit-increasing schemes,” including the payroll tax cuts that the administration has implemented. And so he argues that the resulting increase in debt will have a detrimental effect on future growth. Nothing to explain past failures but plenty to predict future failures if the remedies he proposes will not be implemented.

And so he explains how he sees the future unfold: “Expectations of higher taxes on income will discourage investments … expanding business or improving education [will] dampen if the resulting higher income shoves you into higher tax brackets. Business investments are particularly sensitive to the prospect of higher tax rates on profits.” Which means to say allow the transfer of more wealth from the poor to the rich by adopting a policy of total laissez-faire.

He then throws in something that is truly revealing. It is this: “What is remarkable is that the number of Americans who were neither working nor seeking work soared from 80.9 million to 91.4 million.” He does not explain how this happened because he knows it is the bitter reality used by those who argue that the wealth he acknowledges has been transferred from the poor to the rich in America was invested overseas where the rich Americans are getting even richer while America adds to its unemployment lines.

And what Reynolds is proposing is to continue siphoning off what is left in America to send abroad. It is the same old wine even if it comes in a new bottle.

Unhealthy NY Times Obsession with Egypt

There was a time long ago when Egypt was governed by President Nasser, and I used to live in Cairo. A story surfaced to the effect that an American reporter – probably from the New York Times – was interviewing the President when he remarked that his paper had so far given Egypt coverage worth a million dollars if it were counted as advertizing and paid for. Nasser thought about it for a moment then said: With the kind of reporting we've been getting in your paper, I would pay you a million to keep quiet.

The moral of this story is that perception can vary greatly depending on which side of the table you sit. The American reporter thought the coverage in his paper had been good for Egypt whereas the President of the country thought it was not. This is natural, of course, and you can get a sense of what may have transpired between these two men when you read a recent article published in the NY Times on April 25, 2014. It was written by David D. Kirkpatrick under the title: “Religious Minorities Still Waiting for a New Day in Egypt”.

Already prejudiced against the coverage of Egypt that I see in the New York Times; a publication I feel is too obsessed with that country, I consider that article to be a distortion of reality, therefore detrimental to the country. I am certain, however, that there are people who would not see it that way, least of all the reporter who wrote the article and the editors who published it.

To me, the title itself suggests that the editors of the Times meant to project a bad image of Egypt when they used the word “still” in the middle of it. This article is supposed to be a reporting from the field, not an opinion piece. But the use of that word in the title turns it into an editorial because it suggests that something could have been done but was not done. And when you read the entire article, and you get exposed to the rest of the story, you realize that the title is at odds with the reality on the ground. It is so because you discover that the religious minorities in Egypt are being treated the same as the majority ... contrary to what the title suggests.

Moreover, the “new day” that is mentioned in the title has indeed come to Egypt. It came in the form of a new Constitution that mandates the treatment of everyone equally. You may like the articles of the Constitution pertaining to religion or you may not, but you cannot say they affect the minorities differently from the majority. And yes, despite all that, there are individuals in the country who display prejudice toward those of a different religion. But the government in Cairo cannot legislate bad behavior out of existence anymore than the government in DC can legislate racism out of existence. Prejudice is a fact of life that takes a long time to eradicate.

But what about David Kirkpatrick, the writer of the article? Is he any better than the editors who wrote that title? Apparently not; and this is because his first words are meant to express an opinion he knows will negatively impact the vision that the readers will form of Egypt. Here are the words: “The architects of the military takeover in Egypt...” The author knows that unlike the people of Egypt who appreciate their military as much as the Americans appreciated theirs after the Second World War, the current American population dislikes the military. It does so because it was disappointed by the country's adventures abroad, and so it became suspicious of any military that gets involved in politics. Thus, by using the words “military takeover,” Kirkpatrick is trying to solicit a negative emotional response from the readers.

And now, having prepared the readers to see things through the prism of bias, Kirkpatrick goes on to describe a situation he hopes will make Egypt appear even worse … but he ends up making the country look better. He does because he inadvertently demonstrates that where it takes generations to eradicate the effect of bias in a society, the Egyptians did it in a short period of time. He says this: “Nine months later Egypt's freethinkers and religious minorities are still waiting.” But after 1,200 words of futile attempts to prove the validity of that fallacy, the truth catches up with him.

And so, he is forced to reveal this much: “the complaints have not deterred church leaders from firmly supporting Mr. Sisi as their protector. The Coptic pope has hailed Mr. Sisi as overwhelmingly popular, a competent patriot on an arduous mission, and the one who rescued Egypt. Over Easter weekend, Mr. Sisi made a private visit to the pope at the main cathedral. The mass erupted into prolonged applause at the mention of Mr. Sisi's name.” And all that happened only nine months after what he calls the military takeover.

Well then, is there someone unhappy with the current situation in Egypt? Perhaps there is, but you'll have to look closely to find someone. Guess who it might be. You'll find it hard to believe what you're about to learn – it is the NY Times. However, it is not because the paper was censored in Egypt but because of this: “A panel of scholars has cited authority granted under the new Constitution to block screenings of the Hollywood blockbuster 'Noah' because it violates a prohibition against depiction of the prophets.”

This seems to make the NY Times people unhappy but those who know something about the history of the arts know that idolatry and superstition were prevalent in the Arabian Peninsula; and because of this, Islam restricted the depiction in painting and in sculpture of any and all figures that someone might be inclined to worship. This led to the type of design known as the Arabesque. It involves the fine art of calligraphy, and the sort of geometric figures which are highly decorative, but also play a role in the understanding of that branch of mathematics.

With time, however, the restrictions have been loosened to the point where everything is now permitted except the depiction of God and the prophets – one being Noah. Still, the debate on the subject is ongoing in Egypt because some people want to see this last restriction repealed, and others want it to remain.

And when it comes to the debate about cultural matters in the Arab world, the editors of the New York Times will have no contribution to make if they keep attacking what they don't bother to learn something about.

The surprise Checkmate that killed the Deal

Four American senators trying to sound reasonable write a piece that nevertheless exposes what is wrong with America – what has gone badly wrong with America. John McCain, John Barrasso, John Hoeven and Ron Johnson wrote an article under the title: “It is time for the West to move ahead without Russia” that was published in the Washington Post on April 25, 2014.

Beaten psychologically to a pulp by the hammering they take on a daily basis at the hands of lobbyists representing interest groups – most notably the Jewish and the gun masters of the buttonhole – the four senators do not start the article by saying: here is what we must do for the good of the country. No, this is not what they say. Instead, they draw legitimacy to what they are about to argue from the fact that: “We recently visited Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Moldova … our allies want … they also believe...” These are American senators who no longer even pretend to make independent decisions; they flash the moral dependence they have developed on others, as if showing off their badges of honor.

And what is it that the overnight allies want America to do? They want an “enduring strategic response from the United States, Europe and NATO.” But the senators themselves point out later that Europe may not go along with a plan that is, after all, a return to the Cold War. Thus, America is asked once again to stand sentinel protecting someone, and holding the bag at perpetuity. So then, what is the response of the senators? It is this: “It should be clear to all … We cannot return to business as usual.” They are embracing the business handed to them by the overnight allies.

That was an instant demand from someone they sat with only a few hours, and that was their instant response as lawmakers of superpower America. It takes these people months to decide on keeping their own government from shutting down; it takes them hours to agree to rekindle the Cold War for the benefit of instantly made friends, and it takes them a thought – a simple thought – to know ahead of time what they must do for Israel, and do it without being asked. What a country!

It is obvious that the senators are disappointed at the turn of events. Russia was an adversary of the United States that became a friend when the Cold War ended – or so the Americans thought – and now Russia is back again being an unfriendly adversary. What happened? Well, simply put, what happened was a clash of visions. On the one hand “the West sought to include Russia in the promise of a Europe...” On the other hand “Putin will not compromise his quest to dominate Russia's neighbors.” These are two diametrically opposed visions.

What all this indicates is that the rupture in the relation between America and what it thought was its new ally, is rooted in those disparate visions. Here is the implication of the American vision: “NATO committed not to deploy significant military capabilities onto the territory of new alliance allies, even as it expanded.” And that is an admission by the senators that NATO expanded by deploying military capabilities in the territories that Russia let go at the end of the Cold War.

Even then, Russia accepted these developments and was prepared to live with them. But then, difficulties began to surface in Ukraine, the most important territory ceded by Russia. Where the West refused to help the country pull out of its financial difficulties, Russia came up with a 15 billion dollars loan. Meanwhile, an agreement was worked between Russia and the West on how to handle the situation. But on the eve of implementation, the West reneged on the provisions of the agreement, and came up with a package to rescue Ukraine financially, thus surprising Russia with what amounts to a checkmate.

And throughout the time that these developments were unfolding, the chat in the West was to the effect that Russia had “bribed” Ukraine with 15 billion dollars, and the promise of cheap natural gas. And there is the question: What did the Americans really think of Putin? This is what they think now and what they thought throughout the time that they dealt with him: “...a cynical way to build support for his corrupt and autocratic rule.” That was not very friendly, was it?

So now, what used to be a clash of visions has transformed into a clash of strategies. The Putin strategy as the senators see it is this: “He may play along with Western diplomats to avoid conflict.” And the Western strategy they want to see implemented is this: “The only thing he [Putin] respects, and that can change his calculus, is greater strength.” In other words, they are saying that because Russia wants to avoid conflict, the West must provoke a change in the calculus by making a show of force. This is the argument they are making to convince the world they are good, and that Russia is bad. They want the world to believe that Russia is back again being an “Evil Empire.”

The senators go from there to saying: “We must make policy on this basis.” And they do lay out a policy that need not be repeated here because it has been analyzed many times before on this website when it was laid out by its original authors, the propaganda arm of the Jewish lobby. It was represented by such advocates as John Bolton and his like-minded members of the sorority.

Not only does the strategy looks, sounds and feels Jewish through and through, the promise that the senators flash to entice the American people to bite, turns out to also be Jewish through and through. Look at the following and blow your mind: “These actions could weaken Putin, support our allies, strengthen the U.S. economy, increase federal revenue and create thousands of good jobs.” Wow! Let the good times roll. Alas, it is all as phony as promising a heavenly oasis in the middle of hell.

So you think that the instructions given to the senators during their overseas stopovers end here, and you would be wrong because there is more. Here it is: “Another fact repeatedly highlighted during our trip is that Putin is winning the war of ideas … Putin's propaganda rests on lies, but it is effective … We have given up on communicating the truth … This needs to change.”

The truth, they say. They wish to tell the world their truth. But let me assure them that the more they tell their truth, the more victories Putin will score because their truth can only be as true as the Jewish promises they make – big fat lies.

Poor America, what have you done to deserve being drowned in this cesspool of irrelevant mediocrities?

How could they have hired this Man?

You recognize a mental case – an advanced mental case – when you see someone associate things that do not necessarily associate, then go further and see a conspiracy woven into the phony association he just made. This is what Reuel Marc Gerecht is doing in the article he wrote under the title: “Holocaust Denial and the Iranian Regime” and the subtitle: “In Tehran's worldview, if six million Jews didn't die, then Israel has no excuse to exist.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on April 26, 2014.

Plagued with living by the dictates of a twisted mind, he sees a relationship between Holocaust denial and the desire to develop nuclear weapons. Well, he does not exactly put things in simple terms such as these because a twisted mind never goes in a straight line. Instead, he says that, at least for now, such relationship exists only in Iran ... which is convenient for him because he does not have to explain why China, North Korea, India and Pakistan – all of them Asian countries – have developed nuclear weapons, having never said something that hints at a desire to deny Israel the right to exist.

Gerecht points to a speech that was delivered by Iran's ruling cleric, Ali Khamenei on March 21, 2014. He explains that the speech was an attack on the West, and the Iranians who embrace the Western ways. He goes on to say that Holocaust denial is part of the cleric's strategy to resist those Western ways. But that's not all, says Gerecht, because the man in Iran has additional ways to resist the West. Oh yeah! “And what would they be?” you want to know. Well, are you ready for the answer? Here come the many ways to resist the West: (1) developing a nuclear program, (2) developing a sanctions-proof economy and (3) developing a culture that has little tolerance for deviant conduct – all of which are, of course, alien behavior to Westerners.

But what can be alarming about someone saying he is not too clear about a historical event that had nothing to do with his society? Does everyone on Planet Earth know all that happened in Rwanda, Cambodia, Kosovo and Stalin's Russia? And why is it so vexing to someone like Gerecht that Khamenei expressed puzzlement at the fact that in Europe someone expressing doubt about the Holocaust can get stopped, arrested, sued or imprisoned? Has this not happened? Of course it did. And why should people learn to love horrendous situations of this kind, or profess to like them lest they be criticized by a sicko living thousands of miles away? Why?

In fact, this kind of destructive nonsense has to stop because it is becoming too destructive. And you can see why this is so in the Gerecht article where the impact of his mental deformity is in full swing. Look at the reality of what follows, and feel sick to your stomach: “Many observers, including in the Obama administration, have sought to play down the matter of Iranian Holocaust denial.” The writer hints that people – perhaps those living in Asia close to Iran – have something in common with highly placed individuals in the American government. They all pretend not to see what he sees, he wants us to believe, but does not elaborate.

The first thing he does, however, is demonstrate that he cannot see the difference between expressing doubt about aspects of the Holocaust, and denying it. Second, he involves the Obama administration in an accusatory way because that is where the nuclear issue is slated to play a big role. Third, he directly associates and weaves Holocaust denial with the nuclear issue: “It strongly suggests that Mr. Khamenei's republic will endure great economic hardship to realize its dream of becoming a nuclear power.” Thus, Asian nuclear issues and holocaust denial have become inextricably linked in his twisted mentality. Does he now expect that sooner or later, China, North Korea, India and Pakistan will admit they have hidden motives with regard to Israel's right to exist?

He has not yet made that leap but he lists all those in Iran who, in his view, have embraced Holocaust denial even though none of them actually came out and denied it. These would be all the commanders of the Revolutionary Guard Corps. It would also be the newly elected President of the country, Hasan Rouhani and his former mentor, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. And it would be the well known former President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Gerecht then does something that is truly perplexing because it sounds – at first blush – like it may be an exercise in reverse psychology, but when you analyze it in depth, you find that it does not rise to that level. In fact, reverse psychology would be to say something as simple as: “The Iranians believe that the Jews control America but this is not true.” Talking like that, you draw attention to the fact that the Jews do control America, but you don't want to take the responsibility for saying it, so you attribute the saying to someone else.

Our author started saying something in that style but then messed it up because he could not marry that thought with the main thesis he is spinning. And so, after saying that Iranians have “a passionate belief in the awesome power of the Jews [whose] capitalism controls America and via America the West,” he goes on to deny the validity of that statement in a very unconventional way. This is what he does: “Many Iranians appear to be flummoxed by the contradiction of the all-powerful Jews losing more than half their number to the Nazis.”

This being his approach, he goes on to explain; it must be that in the eyes of the Iranians, the Holocaust is “a narrative spun by the Jews to engender guilt and special advantages over Muslims and others.” Right there, Gerecht blows himself out of the water. This happens because the animosity that the Jews began to display toward the Muslims did not begin against all Muslims. It began against the Sunni Arabs, while the Jews were chummy with the Shiites of Iran. And none of that happened till 1948 when the state of Israel was established, whereas the narrative of the Holocaust began to circulate a number of years earlier than that.

Having blown away the advantage he could have had by holding on to the idea that the Jews control America and via America the West, he now tries to gain a similar kind of advantage but does a poor job. He says that the Iranians are unlikely to attack Israel because they fear American power and Israel's too. So you want to know: What's the problem, therefore? Well, are you ready for the answer, my friend? Do you expect a huge revelation to come down like a lightening bolt? Or would settle for an anti-climatic ending? Here it is: “The supreme leader's speech is ultimately about creating an Islamic bloc that is capable of turning back Judeo-Western imperialism.”

Is that it? The Jews, Israel, America and the West are upset – they are angry – red hot angry – enraged – willing to bomb Iran into the Stone Age – because the Iranians wish to be free of Judeo-Western imperialism. Is it that the Westerners devoted millions upon millions of words; wrote tens of thousands of texts and gave tens of thousands of speeches for no reason except to thwart that illegitimate Islamo-Iranian effort to be free? Is Western freedom more valuable than Islamic freedom?

What's this guy Reuel Marc Gerecht doing in America, anyway? Did he work for the CIA? How could they have hired someone like him? Did they pay him too? No wonder that place is screwed up. And what's he doing now? He is with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies? What does he do there? Train America's legislators to urinate over America and rob its people to fatten the Jewish moguls in Israel and those everywhere else? No wonder America is getting screwed, and screwed up in the process.

A Fantasy World to bloody America's Nose

John R. Bolton has asked a “what if?” question, and has discussed what he calls a pressing policy issue. He does that in an article he published under the title: “NATO Is Still the Answer” and the subtitle: Obama's floundering Ukraine policy.” The article is published in the Weekly Standard issue of May 5, 2014.

Asking a “what if?” question and answering it is a literary form that is in the genre of speculative fantasy. It was created to entertain the readers who wish to take a flight of fancy into a parallel universe where they experience an alternative reality. There, all that they ever wished for, does happen; and all that they wish never happened, vanishes as if by magic.

Bolton tells the story of what happened in the year 2008 at a time when President Bush proposed to bring the two former Soviet Republics, Ukraine and Georgia on a path to joining NATO, and the Europeans rejected the proposal. Thus, Bolton asks what if they had not rejected the proposal. And he follows with the policy question: Should we try again for NATO membership?

Because his aim is not really to entertain but to set-up a new scene upon which he will argue in favor of the issue he says is pressing, he begins the discussion by telling of an earlier scene that was played by good guys and bad ones. The Bush people were the good guys, he says. And he wants to make their dream come true even though it was rejected by the Europeans who were the bad guys. These were bad guys, he says, because they used Bush's Iraq war as excuse to argue against the NATO proposal. But that was a phony excuse, he goes on to say, and the real reason for their rejection was that the cowardly Europeans needed Russia's oil and gas, and they feared that country's response to admitting into NATO two former republics of the old Soviet Union.

What happened after that, according to our fantasy writer, is that “Moscow understood Western [European] cowardice.” And so, Russia bombed “its tiny neighbor [Georgia] and surged troops to within 30 miles of its capital.” But then, fearing the arrival of the Bush cavalry – even if Bush never said he would send it – Russia decided to snatch no more than “the two provinces it most wanted to hive off.” As you can see, even though the Bush people did nothing heroic, they continued to wear the hats of the good guys bestowed on them by Bolton.

This done, there remains the matter of linking the old scene with the new one for which Bolton has a presentation to make. One of the bad guys in the new scene being President Obama, he ties him to the old scene by making use of the fact that he was a candidate running to be President at the time. This is how he does the linkage by which ownership of the situation passes from the Bush hand to the Obama hand: “Then-candidate Barack Obama initially called for both Russia and Georgia to exercise restraint.” Now rendered immaculate, it is time for Bush to exit the scene gracefully: “With its term waning, and facing a daunting economic crisis, the Bush administration did little more for Georgia or Ukraine.” Goodbye lovely Bush, hello terrible Obama.

Upon this, Bolton unleashes a litany of errors, he says, Obama committed. There was the unveiling of the “reset” button with Russia. The trashing of the missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. The adoption of the START treaty. The reliance on Russian diplomacy in Syria. The debacle that followed Russia's support for the Libyan resolution at the Security Council.

He goes on to say that “Obama left Ukraine and Georgia to fend for themselves.” And so, he suggests that “in the long term, joining the alliance is the only strategy that can secure Georgian and Ukrainian sovereignty.” But is that enough to motivate the American public to get involved in a European situation where the Europeans themselves are reluctant to get involved? No, it's not enough. What to do, therefore, to motivate that public? The answer is to start a convoluted argument, and end it with a warning that WW III could result if America remained aloof. This is how Bolton does it:

“Some argue that NATO should never have admitted ex-Warsaw Pact members, or added former Soviet republics, because geography and history relegated these countries to Russia's influence. [But] one could argue that Poland is in Germany's influence. That kind of dispute is why Europe saw two world wars. It is to prevent such wars, and further effusions of American blood, that we bring countries into NATO.”

As can be seen in that tour-de-force, fantasy allows the writer to create a fictitious situation (the dispute between Germany and Russia about Poland,) talk about it as if it were real, then draw the conclusion that it will compel you (America, Europe and NATO) to take measures having the potential to lead to a frightening situation (World War III) which he says he wants to prevent.

And there lies the contradiction because soon after saying that getting these countries into NATO will prevent trouble, he says that: “NATO membership of Ukraine and Georgia undoubtedly carries risks.” So the question: What situation is he aiming for? The prevention of trouble or the invitation of risks? Still, the fact remains that no one knows how the future will unfold, and he feels he must continue motivating the West, or at least motivating America alone to take action.

He begins this part of the argument by answering the “What if?” question: “The Europeans missed an excellent chance to reduce the risks in 2008...” and he begins the argument by which he unveils the policy question he mentioned at the start: “...and now, of course, they are even more dependent on Russian hydrocarbons.” He gives details by asserting that: “expanded trade between Russia and the EU has enhanced Russia's leverage , not Europe's.” And so he argues for the economic isolation of Russia which, he says, can now be done given the new oil and gas discoveries in America.

But he laments that Europe is timid and Obama is weak. Meanwhile “the stakes are high for Ukraine and Georgia … equally high for all the former Soviet republics, which understand … they will not be far behind.” And the matter does not end here, according to Bolton, because further afield China is watching, and it has made its own territorial claims in Asia.

And so, the response he wishes for is that America prepare itself militarily to stand up to the whole world alone if need be. Why is that? Because the world is full of evil empires developing the potential to threaten America's national security. But what about the American public that had it up to here being told this story for seventy years, and getting involved in adventures that made that situation possible in the first place? Well, skilled politicians, he says, will know how to sell the message to the public in the upcoming campaign for the presidency of the United States.

The part of history that John Bolton is missing is that following the Reagan buildup of America's military, someone remarked: “We borrowed a trillion dollars from the Japanese and had a hell of a party.” That buildup may have contributed to the demise of the old Soviet Union, which had the good sense to realize it would be futile to fight a losing battle thus changed course. But it also had the effect of contributing to the slow motion economic demise of America, and the simultaneous rise of China, Russia and a number of other economic powerhouses.

The shoe is now on the other foot. Will America have the good sense to realize it is futile to fight a losing battle, and decide to change course before hitting bottom?

Obama and the American public say let's try something new; Bolton and his kind say let's hit bottom and get our noses rubbed in the mud.

From a Culture of Ideas to one of Sound Bites

Once upon a time there were three regular audio-visual networks in America and not a single cable network. A first time visitor to the country would have seen a reflection of it in those media as well as their print sisters. In fact, everyone in the business of communicating with the public sought to reflect an image of the self as being the quintessential American. And this meant that the ideas and the concepts mattered more than the words that carried them to the audience.

For example, the television networks had two hours in the morning during which time they broadcast (a) segments containing the national and international news; (b) segments containing interviews conducted usually with experts in the field being discussed, and carried out at the highest intellectual level; (c) segments representing lighter moments such as interviews conducted with entertainers of one kind or another, allowing them at times to perform live on the set.

All this being a true reflection of the nation, you met people that came with a bow-tie or a T-shirt, people that came with a stiff upper lip or a loose tongue, and people that were naturally courteous or naturally vulgar. As to the noon hour, one network had a dry and formal half-hour news broadcast, and nothing else. In the evening, all three networks had half-hour news with the occasional two-minute commentary. Then one day, one of the networks went to a full hour broadcast of the evening news, and the others followed suit.

This was the post WW II America, an era that lasted a generation and a half or maybe two. Then several developments happened almost simultaneously, both in the realm of communication technology and the demography of the nation. This brought about a rapid change in the way that America's face looked to its people and to strangers. It was a development that turned the word into an end in itself, thus put the comprehension of the ideas and concepts beyond the reach of most people.

In technology, fiber optics gave birth to cable television, and this changed the face of the audio-visuals where 24 hours of cable news allowed the quips and the sound bites to replace the ideas and the concepts to being the preferred mode of communication. As to demography, the second and third generation offspring of the post-war baby boomers made it their pastime to fight the established order with the aim to absolutely eradicating the old … without having a clue as to what should replace it.

And while all this was happening, the old timers died off one after the other ... from the youngest such as Charles Kuralt to the oldest such as Mike Wallace. A handful of these people are still alive, but most have retired and have gone out of sight with one notable exception. That would be George F. Will who wrote a column under the title: “The Adolescent President” and the subtitle: “The rhetorical excesses of Barack Obama.” It was published on April 23, 2014 in National Review Online. Having all that background in mind, it should be easy to understand why he wrote the column the way that he did.

George Will criticizes young President Obama for using the quips “meanwich” and “stinkburger” while talking to a young academic audience, so he calls him an arrested-development adolescent. He goes on to say there are four figures of speech that teenagers use when communicating with each other that the President has used lately. Expecting him to show four strong examples that will make the President look like a true adolescent, you are blown away by Will's massive failure with his first example.

Look at what he calls the invocation of a straw man. To make his point, he quotes the President as saying: “They said nobody would sign up.” He then followed with his own observation which is to the effect that: “Of course, no one said this.” The fact is that some people did say “nobody would sign up.” They said it because it is a figure of speech that does not literally mean anybody, but means very few people, at best, will sign up. In fact, George Will's own observation illustrates this point. When he said “no one said this,” he did not mean it in a literal sense because only a fool would try that.

Do you know why? Because the attempt would be a futile effort to prove the negative. The only way he can prove positively that nobody said that, is to obtain seven billion affidavits from the seven billion people who inhabit the Earth, each saying they never said that. Since he cannot do this, he proved himself to be a fool for ascertaining that “no one said this.” And he proved to be an even bigger fool when he called the President a pyromaniac in a field of straw men.

George Will did not make that colossal mistake because he is of the old guard; he made it because he shed the old without embracing the new which is why he is currently living in a cultural purgatory. And you can see the effect of this reality in the other three figures of speech he says the President borrowed from teenagers. One of these being that Obama said the debate is settled and over. Well, teenagers may or may not have a good reason for saying the debate is over; the President has the duty and the power to call for cloture. The principle is in the constitution of every parliamentary democracy. Check it out, George.

Another point to which he objects is Obama's assertion that ACA is working. No, says Will, it is not working. Well, if one of these two must be considered adolescent, it will have to be the columnist because the President has millions of people on his side saying that ACA is working for them.

The last point brought out by the writer is that the President said ACA was not about him. This means it should not be about him. But if some “states have chosen not to expand Medicaid for no reason than political spite,” that's their problem and not Obama's. If George Will wants to make it his problem too, he can go right ahead and do so, thus prolong his stay in purgatory.

Importance of 'Gross Output' exaggerated

Mark Skousen is excited that the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has at long last taken the idea of Gross Output seriously, thus making it as important as the GDP (Gross Domestic Product). He explains why he is happy about this development in an article he wrote under the title: “At Last, a Better Economic Measure” and the subtitle: “Gross output will correct the fallacy fostered by GDP that consumer spending drives the economy.” The article was published in the Wall Street Journal on April 23, 2014.

Although the value of Gross Output can be extracted from the mountain of data published periodically on the performance of the economy, it will nevertheless be very helpful to people doing a certain kind of analysis when the BEA will start publishing the raw data as it compiles it in the field. Another advantage of having this data is that the figures will be more accurate than those which can be extracted.

We need to take an example to see what all this means. Suppose you are a mogul so enamored with the auto industry, you wish to do nothing in life but mass produce a model of the ultimate mini-car. You build an integrated industry that starts with the mining of raw materials, that go through the various stages of producing parts for the car. The parts get assembled into cars that end up as finished products in the dealerships you open around the country. You do your bookkeeping to serve both the GDP method, and the Gross Output method.

To that end, you compile your figures as follows for each car. Your Mining Division sells 1,000 dollars worth of raw materials to the division that makes the parts. The added value here is the full figure of $1,000. The Parts Division makes the parts and sells them to the Assembly Division for 2,000 dollars. The value added here is $2,000 - $1,000 = $1,000. The assembly division does the assembly and sells the finished product to the showroom for 4,000 dollars. The value added here is $4,000 - $2,000 = $2,000. Ultimately, the showroom sells the car to the final customer for 7,000 dollars. The added value here is $7,000 - $4,000 = $3.000.

Seeing the final sale price of 7,000 dollars, you know right away that this is the sum total of all the added values. To be sure, you compile 1,000 + 1,000 + 2,000 + 3,000 = 7,000 dollars. You now compile the values for the Gross Output, and they would be the sale values of each division to the next ... all he way to the final customer. They are these: 1,000 + 2,000 + 4,000 + 7,000 = 14,000 dollars. This is double the figure compiled for the GDP.

Mark Skousen says there are advantages to having these two approaches rather than having only the GDP approach. He calls Gross Output, a supply-side statistic because it measures all the steps in the production side of the economy as seen in the above example. And this is different from the GDP which measures the “use” economy as represented by the figure representing the final sale – also seen in the above example.

Well, that view is obvious and not subject to question. But the Skousen argument becomes questionable when he says this: “[GDP] has led to the misguided Keynesian notion that consumer and government spending drive the economy rather than saving, business investment, technology and entrepreneurship.” He bases that argument on the fact that a great deal of activity is done before the final customer enters the picture.

That is true, but if the final customer is taken out of the picture, everything that is done before him will come to a screeching halt. This is because the showrooms will fill with cars that nobody is buying; the storage capacity of the Assembly Division will fill with parts that cannot be assembled; the factories making the parts will fill with raw materials that is not needed; the smelters at the mines will stop smelting the piles of ores piling at the hoppers, and the mills will stop milling the ores that keep coming from the mines.

Yes, a great deal is done before the ultimate buyer gets to do his thing and buys the car, but he is the king for whom all that is done is done. If he goes on strike, everyone else goes to sleep. The truth is that an economy is made of two parts in the same way that a bird is made of two wings. The economy cannot fly without the supply side which produces the goods and the services; and neither can it fly without the consumption side which absorbs those goods and services and gets things moving.

People like Mark Skousen will have to stop politicizing everything they write just to get published, and the Wall Street Journal will have to stop looking for politics in everything it decides to publish. A world class economy deserves better than that.

Mysterious Ways how Things turn around

The Dennis Prager article of April 22, 2014 in National Review Online sent me back to a time when Jews had less influence on the media in Canada, and I had the motivation to go see people in their newspaper offices, their radio studios and their television stations to befriend what I hoped will be the individuals I shall work with someday. The Prager article has the title: “From the Great-Man Theory to Dead-White-Male-Criticism Theory” and the subtitle: “When race and class eclipse values, pursuing the truth is just 'acting white.'”

What is mysterious even to someone like me who has seen much that is odd in life, is how some people – all of them Jews – can be responsible for creating a situation, and then be so adamant complaining about it. And this is what Prager is doing in the current article. I do not know what he may have done long ago to contribute to the situation he is complaining about, but I can tell you that neither he nor any Jew I know of complained about such situation in the past. In fact, no one at all – Jew or gentile – complained about it publicly.

A complaint that was whispered in my ear more often than any other came usually from young Christian women and men who wanted me to know – and if possible do something about – those Jews who appeared out of nowhere, and bossed them like a slave driver. They used to tell them they must do things they never did before; things that made no sense at all. It is that the Jewish bosses wanted the camera operators and floor managers to cut to the reaction shots of people making bad faces when an Arab was speaking or when a non-Arab was saying something good about the Arabs. As well, the bosses wanted to see happy reaction shots when a Jew was speaking or when someone was saying good things about Israel or the Jews.

And there were numerous stories about young television hosts or hopeful ones that were invited to dinner by people they only knew as being highly placed. During the dinner, the notion was slipped to them that the Arabs and those who speak on their behalf never answer the question directly but always go off on a tangent. The advice given to the hosts was to the effect that they should cut the guests off at the start, and tell them in a humiliating fashion to answer the question. Some hosts did just that, and felt bad about it later because they knew it was not the Arabs who went off on a tangent; it was the Jews who did so – and did it all the time.

There were other complaints as well that reached me, and they were just as bizarre and just as nonsensical. For example, there was the story of the Jewish boss who almost had a fit behind the camera when an Arab professor from New Brunswick was having a first class interview on live television. The problem that almost killed the Jew was that the host of the show refused to kill the interview and go to a commercial despite the frantic gesticulations by the boss to do so.

And this brings us to the current lamentation by Dennis Prager. He begins his presentation by giving examples as to how some things were perceived decades ago, and how they are perceived now. He finds the situation to be lamentable, and blames the transformation on the “left-wing trinity of race, gender and class” taught to students in American colleges so as to instill disdain in them for the white race. He explains: “The new dividing lines are no longer good and bad or excellent and mediocre but white and non-white, male and female, and rich and poor.”

Well. You know what Dennis Prager? Let me tell you something, Dennis. Thirty and forty years ago, I and a few like myself were saying something to the effect that the new dividing lines are no longer good and bad or excellent and mediocre but Arab and non-Arab, hyphenated and non-hyphenated, Jewish lackey and free spirit. And we predicted that someday, this virulent Jewish disease will spread throughout the North American culture, and will rot it so badly that even the Jews will suffer from it like the snake that bites itself. You are feeling the effect of the bite, Dennis and you are screaming bloody murder. But I am not shedding a tear for you.

You and your people (if indeed you are a people) have asked for it. You got it and more than that, you contaminated the culture that embraced you and gave you every opportunity to share it, contribute to it, add to it and improve on it, but all you did was exploit it and rot it so badly, you cannot bring yourself to even smell it.

You're sorry for what you did, and so is the rest of the world.

What Bret Stephens knows but won't tell you

When we speak of dictatorship, we usually mean the rule of one person, but the truth is that no man or woman has ever governed a society single-handedly. Such rulers would have had a small entourage of loyal toadies helping them govern, or they would have had a majority of the society agreeing with them if not urging them to impose even harsher measures on the nation.

For this reason, expressions such as (1) dictatorship of the majority, (2) that of the proletariat and (3) that of the Bolsheviks have been coined. Their use means that a nation does not necessarily need a single despot to be run like a dictatorship; the same effect can be had if a majority of the population adopts an extreme point of view, and demands that it becomes the accepted doctrine of the nation.

Thus, if we consider democracy to be the opposite of dictatorship, and if we reduce democracy to the act of staging periodic elections and the taking of a vote, we can construct a situation in which a society will live in a state of dictatorship and a state of democracy simultaneously. In fact, apartheid South Africa was such a society as does Israel at this time given that oppression and the staging of elections existed at the same time in the same place in South Africa as they do now in Israel.

There remain the pertinent questions: What about the former colonial powers of Europe that exploited other peoples? And America that enslaved its own people? Were they democracies at the time because they staged elections? If the answer is no, must we not, therefore, consider the current regimes which are offshoots of that past to be the expression of a false democracy? Or is there something else we have not thought about?

The above is what comes to mind when you read the latest of the Bret Stephens columns. It has the title: “What Samuel Huntington Knew” and the subtitle: “The dictators are back. The political scientist saw it coming.” The column was published in the Wall Street Journal on April 22, 2014.

Stephens starts his discussion by mentioning the political scientist, Samuel Huntington, who wondered what would happen if the American model of governance began to look like a loser. Apparently, he wondered at a time when “all over the world, people seemed to want democracy, capitalism, free trade, free speech, freedom of conscience, freedom for women,” says Stephens. But then look what happened, says he: “the dictators are back in places where we thought they had been banished. And they are back by popular demand.”

He mentions the Egyptian Abdel Fatah Sisi that is expected to win in next month's election overwhelmingly, the Hungarian Viktor Orban that just won a third term, the Turk Recep Erdogan whose party won resounding victories in key elections, and Vladimir Putin of Russia that has a public approval of 80 percent. All these people are established dictators, says Stephens, or expected to become one in the case of Sisi. And they all have something else in common: they are doing so badly, they should not be held in such high esteem by their people, yet they are – what is going on?

The author gives a quick rundown of the explanations offered by the West to account for that mystery, and says that not one account explains everything. And so he comes up with his own explanation; one that should not surprise those who know his thinking. He says that the West is not doing well because it is not delivering higher growth, lower unemployment and better living. A few paragraphs later, he elaborates: “ A West that prefers debt-subsidized welfarism over economic growth … A West that sacrifices efficiency on the altars of regulation...” This is Right Wing thinking. But to get from the assertion to the elaboration, Stephens finds it necessary to quote Huntington again who wrote: “Sustained inability to provide welfare, equity, justice, domestic order … could over time undermine the legitimacy of even democratic governments.” And this is Left Wing thinking. Stephens has just contradicted himself which is also typical of his style.

And there is worse. It is that he says this: “A West that consistently sacrifices efficiency on the altars ... of political consensus will lose the dynamism that makes the risks inherent in free societies seem worthwhile. A West that shrinks from maintaining global order … will invite challenges from nimble adversaries willing to take geopolitical gambles.”

In other words, Bret Stephens is calling for the dynamism of dictatorships to replace the inefficient political consensus of the democracies. For this to work, he attributes the taking of risks not to dictators but to free societies. And he explains what those risks are: the taking of geopolitical gambles, he says. These are code words to mean that he wants America and the West to keep fighting till they vanquish someone or be vanquished themselves.

Do we see something else at play here? Yes, and we do not have to go too far to see what that is. It is vintage Bret Stephens which means vintage World Jewry. Authoritarianism has been and remains the core of Jewish life, and while that core does not change, the outer skin does, taking on the color and shape most preferred by the beholder. Right now the beholder is a liberal democrat, and so the outer skin of the Jew appears liberal and democratic.

But the decision of the collective is what stands at the end of the day, which is why Jewish dictatorship rarely looks like that of one man or one woman. Rather it looks like the mysterious unfolding of events you know are Jewish inspired but have difficulty tracing to a single Jew. In the end, everyone in his country – be that America or Europe – is made to feel like a Palestinian in his own country.

And this is why people all over the world want to be governed by leaders who will deal decisively with Jewish infiltrators, thus keep them free to choose the life they want to live in their own country, not the life chosen for them by Jewish masters living somewhere else.

The Cleansing has started but not completed

America will have no hope recapturing its old cultural vibrancy till it cleanses itself of the rivers of Jewish moral syphilis running through all aspects of its journalistic, cultural and political life. Not only does the phenomenon affect the character of the American person at home where Christian children are taught that the only way they will succeed in life is by attaching themselves to a Jewish god, and be obedient to him – it also affects America's relationship with the rest of the world; one that gets shaped by the syphilitic lens through which America views everyone else, thus invites a reciprocal sort of response.

Fortunately, there are signs that things may be about to change. These may be false signs or they may be good omens – time will tell. What we can do in the meantime is watch what is happening, encourage the positive developments when and where we can, and hope for the best. One example giving off hopeful signs is the article that was written by Erin Cunningham under the title: “Young people led Egypt's revolution, but the old guard still rules.” It was published in the Washington Post on April 20, 2014.

Already from the opening few paragraphs, the reader senses the kind of internal wrestling that is undergoing in the mind and soul of the article's writer. On the one hand Cunningham went to Cairo equipped with old banalities (Egypt's increasingly authoritarian trajectory) as well as instructions on where to go in Cairo (modest cafe in the capital's impoverished neighborhood of Imbaba.) These were the old clichés and stereotypes that clashed with what the writer saw when she got there.

And what she saw, and was not afraid to describe with unusual honestly, was the reality that “the recent confrontation was a small reflection of a widening generational split – one that is likely to challenge Sissi should he be elected this spring.” She saw a generational gap; a human phenomenon whose association with those hated by the Jews was forbidden to make lest these people appear human to American eyes.

It may be that we are beginning to see a sign the Jewish moral syphilis infesting the American journalistic setup is being expunged. In fact, the rest of the article – or most of it – could have been written about a situation unfolding in a place like say, America, Britain, Canada or Australia. This is a treatment you never saw applied to Egypt in the last four decades. In fact, it is a treatment you never saw applied anywhere else in the world because every place had a set of specifications that were determined for it beforehand. They were specifications designed to comply with the view that the Jews have for each place.

But if the recent transformation of Cunningham is real and permanent, it means that America is on its way to being healed. This will happen because America's relation with the rest of the world will improve, and because the human condition at home is better understood when looked at it from several different angles. Given that the Americans were instructed to view that condition from the Jewish angle, they could never have realized what Cunningham is now telling them can happen and does happen.

Look at this passage: “The rift between generations is certainly not absolute. A significant number of young people support the current military-backed order, and some older people oppose the government and its security campaigns.” In other words, the author is saying that nothing is all black or all white, but things are made of shades of gray. This is true everywhere in the world, and it must be true in America as well. This is a good lesson to learn and to remember.

It also means that Erin Cunningham is re-injecting a sense of depth into the American culture. This is what the Jewish moral syphilis has been depleting since it arrived decades ago with the promise to educate the public as to the “Jewish sensitivities.” The Americans got sensitive alright, and the culture became superficial.

Another thing that Cunningham is telling her readers is that the young in Egypt are agitating because they want a seat at the table. Well, some of us remember what happened when an Egyptian billionaire spent a fortune trying to get them to go out and campaign for their candidates. But what did they do? They said: “don't worry, Mr. Sawiris, we don't have to go out and campaign. We can do it all by social media.” That was not good enough because these people need to walk the walk to get to the table.

Let's hope they learned that lesson.

The Politics of Intellectual Prostitution

The Jewish obsession with Egypt – going back almost three and a half millenniums – is not abating. In fact, it seems to become more intense with time as can be seen with the way that the politics around the subject has developed in the last few days. Let's begin with the online Forbes Magazine where Tim Ferguson wrote an article in which he mentions both the IMF view of the Egyptian economy, and that of Steven Cook whom Ferguson says is a senior fellow for the Mideast at the Council on Foreign Relations. The Ferguson article appeared in Forbes on April 17, 2014 under the title: “An Egypt Expert Doesn't Share IMF's Hopeful View.”

What's it about? Well, if you are modestly familiar with the events that have transpired in Egypt during the past three years, and if you have been following the IMF reports concerning that country, you'll come out with the view that the international institution has been painting a fairly accurate picture of the economic situation as it was evolving in Egypt. But parallel to that, Tim Ferguson of Forbes Magazine has been doing what most publications of the kind do which is to paint a bleaker picture than warranted. They do what they do for a reason, which is what motivated Ferguson. But he also had a second reason as we shall see in a moment.

The motivation for being negative on the countries that have gone through difficult times – like a revolution, for example – is that people such as Ferguson badmouth those economies to scare off potential investors. This keeps the value of the assets down while Ferguson and cohorts load up on them. It is only after they had their fill that they start saying the economy has performed well. When the buyers start lining up to buy those assets, Ferguson and cohorts line up to sell to them at a high price.

The second reason has to do with the Jewish obsession with Egypt. To begin with, it must be noted that the Jewish propaganda machine has developed the habit of speaking of the Arabs as if they were automatons that respond not to the full range of human emotions but to fear and fear only. That is, if you want an Arab to go left, you must make him fear going right. If you want him to backtrack, you must make him fear going forward. This is moral syphilis, of course, and the Jewish machine has ejaculated a heavy load of it into the heads, hearts and souls of the Americans, especially the congressional dogs who gorge themselves on syphilis.

And the way that the Jewish leaders and their running dogs have practiced that habit in relation to Egypt, was to mobilize hundreds upon hundreds of mouthpieces, who gave thousands upon thousands of lectures, and wrote tens of thousands of articles on how to punish Egypt for not doing as told. And with the warning came the threat that Egypt will be punished even more severely if it did not make the strategic decision of changing its ways fundamentally and for good. And would you know it, one of the mouthpieces, and a loud one at that, was Steven A. Cook who participated mightily at filling the heads, hearts and souls of Americans with moral syphilis.

And then, an advice put together by the revolutionary people of Egypt, was sent to the successive leaders of that country. It was to the effect that the way to deal with Jewish America is to show these people a big and fat middle finger telling the bags of moral syphilis they should stick the thing right up their rear ends. It should go deep inside ... and should reach the throat where they will tear their vocal cords. This will force them to stop making the kind of threats that work on no one but the Jews whose very existence rests on the fear of being annihilated. Fear motivates no one but the Jews; yet fear is advocated by no one but the Jews. Go figure.

Not too many got the message of revolutionary Egypt, but Steven Cook – a mouthpiece of the Jewish propaganda machine – did. And so, he wrote an article not to say punish Egypt as he used to, but to say something else. It is that he found himself in a quandary when the people of Egypt called his bluff. So he stopped saying punish Egypt but could not say reward it either. What to do?

Well, the Jewish obsession with Egypt being still there, and the intense desire for keeping that country “in the fold” growing more intense, Steven Cook and those like him had no alternative but to say: Help Egypt because that country is important to us, and it is in trouble economically. This is what his article is about.

As to Tim Ferguson and the Forbes people who could not understand the message if it were stuffed right up their rear ends, they got the bright idea of using the Cook article to claim vindication for what they have been echo repeating for ever and ever.

I gave up on these people, and you should too. They are a lost cause beyond any redemption.