The big Question: What is good Government?

Making predictions is a risky business except when it comes to projecting into the future how a debate may proceed. And my belief is that a thorough review of what constitutes good government will follow the upcoming mid-term elections (in a few days) no matter the outcome.

In fact, the discussion, with name calling and all – not a real debate – has been ongoing since the election of the current President, Barack Obama. It happened because he was thought to be a socialist by those who think of themselves as capitalists. And so they took pot shots at him because, they said, he favored big government whereas they favored small government.

Faced with the question: “Where to from here?” the participants will have no choice but to pick-up what they view as valuable pieces from the wreckage they have been causing during the past six years, and construct with that a real debate on the subject of good government. You already see an attempt at jump-starting such a debate in the article that Charles Krauthammer wrote under the title: “A Referendum on Competence” and the subtitle: “An anemic economy and sense of national decline portend a bad Election Day for democrats.” It was published on October 30, 2014 in National Review Online.

After listing and elaborating on his views as to what he believes are the failings of the Obama administration, Krauthammer points the finger at the real culprit in all of this. He does it in the following manner: “After all, they represent not just the party 'now' in government but the party 'of' government.” In other words, he says that Obama did badly because he believes in big government, and has governed accordingly.

While acknowledging that this is only a politically motivated and partisan discussion, not a real debate on the subject of good government, you look into the rest of the article to spot the valuables that the author might have left in the wreckage. And sure enough, you see that he specifically mentions both the economy and the question of competence. And when you look at the core of his argument with regard to these two points, you discover that there may potentially be not just a regular valuable hidden inside them, but a jewel that will stand as cause for a real debate.

Look what Krauthammer says: “here is a president who proclaims the reduction of inequality to be the great cause of his administration. Yet … the 1 percent are doing splendidly in the Fed-fueled stock market, even as median income has fallen.” Undoubtedly, the author believes this is one area where Obama has demonstrated incompetence along with the other areas which he lists separately … ranging from the rollout of the healthcare website to the failings of the Secret Service.

Well, here is the big question: Can the little that he mentioned about the economy be turned into a real debate that will yield great insight and perhaps help shape a strategy to serve the nation; maybe even the world? Yes it can. The first thing we do is note that the 1 percent are doing well, courtesy of a central bank that is independent of the government. So the question now becomes: What could the government have done to offset that trend? There is only one answer: Redistribute the income to the extent that you can, which means big government.

I call this the paradox of interlocking issues. It boils down to this: You can solve a problem by taking measures that will tend to aggravate the problem they are meant to solve. Whoa! This sound vicious. Is cracking that paradox, and solving it an impossible task? Should we not just throw our hands in the air and walk away? No, we should not do that.

In fact, most problems in life have an interlocking component in them. The solution consists of finding out what the right amount of medicine will have to be. The idea is to make the medicine contribute the most toward the solution while contributing the least toward the side effects.

This means finding the right balance to every problem. In turn, it means exhausting the debate, agreeing on a course of action, getting all parties together and cooperating toward the solution of the problem rather than try to score political points.

This is how good government looks like. It is not big; it is not small. It is the right size for every problem.

How much worse (better) can it get?

What is bad news for one man can be good news for another. More specifically, some people will come to believe that the rupture between the United States of America and Israel is bad news, while others will come to believe that it is good news. There are many reasons why either camp will hold to the opinion that suits it, but one of the reasons will carry a meaning that is more profound than any of the others.

Since the beginning of recorded history the Jews have fled one place and sought refuge in another because the people in the place from which they fled discovered how destructive they are, whereas the people in the place that gave them refuge did not fathom how bad someone can be. It is like a haggard knocking at your door, begging to give him shelter in the garage or the woodshed in the backyard for the next couple of days till he gets on his feet again, and can resume his journey away from here.

The neighbor warns you to turn him away or at least be careful and keep a close eye on him because he will be tempted to ravage the house, assault the children and eat your cat. But you laugh off and shrug the suggestion; and you take the haggard in. Before you know it, he will have ravaged the house, assaulted the children, ate the cat and ate the dog too.

Aware of what the Jews will do to them if they get to be nice to the Jews, many in Europe and elsewhere in the world have formulated a kind of litmus test by which to vet the people who run for office in their countries. This is how they ascertain that the people who seek a position of leadership do not have Jewish in their background. What motivates them is the thought that having even one Jew in government is like having a deadly virus that will multiply and take over the house, the children, the cat and the dog. And so, out of caution, they will want to have nothing to do with Jews. And that's that.

But human beings being humane by nature, there is always someone who will stick his neck out and protest the treatment of Jews in a way that is different from someone else. Such people will want to see clear and irrefutable evidence – not that there are bad individuals among the Jews; everyone has some of those – but that the Jews as a group will turn out to be destructive for the country. In effect, they will want to see the example of a country that went down the drain due to the activities of the Jews in it.

And this is where the example of America will come in handy. The bad news describing how superpower America was taken from its most glorious moment to its most humiliating time will have become the good news to convince the doubters that Jews are a destructive element every society must do what it can to avoid.

Of course, history lives in the history books. It also lives in the memoirs, the video clips, the sound bites and what have you. But nothing will be more convincing as to the role that the Jews have played in the destruction of America than the full display of the opinions expressed by the opinion makers themselves. People like the editors of the Wall Street Journal and other publications; and people like columnist Ian Tuttle writing in National Review Online (NRO) or another publication, will do more to expose the full dimension of the Jewish doings that demolished America, than any other piece of evidence.

And the readers can check this out for themselves by reviewing the Journal's editorial that appeared under the title: “Obama Belittles Israel” and the subtitle: “The latest snubs and sneers won't help U.S. interests in the Mideast.” It was published on October 31, 2014. Also on that day, NRO published Tuttle's column which came under the title: “Mideast Chickens Coming Home to Roost” and the subtitle: “The Obama administration is incapable of imagining that it might be wrong.” They are but a small example of what has been going on lately in the print and the audio-visual media.

Convinced beyond any doubt that the Jews who were portrayed in the Protocol of the Elders of Zion as being tame and lovable characters who might, nevertheless, be tempted to pull a prank or two, will come out of the litmus test looking like the princes of conspiracy, backstabbing and double-crossing, out to run America into the ground for the benefit of anyone that will pay them for doing this work.

Bogus Currency driving fake Narratives

In a modern economy, farmers, miners, artisans and professionals do not barter their products or services anymore. Barter is how trade used to be conducted from ancient times up to the mercantile era.

What happens now is that a central bank prints what is called fiat money, and has it distributed to each according to merit. Such money, whether actually printed as a banknote or transferred electronically, is called currency. And it is what people use to buy what they need, or against which they trade what they have in surplus.

Something similar happens in the marketplace of ideas where a great deal is generated and pushed out as being legitimate currency, if not the only legitimate currency. And so, to understand what is going on in the marketplace of ideas, we need to go back to the transitional period that separated the mercantile era from the modern one.

It was during this period that metalworkers, called smiths, were enjoying their heyday. At the top of the food chain were the smiths that handled the precious metals, most notably gold and silver. Hence, you have the nouns as well as the proper names Goldsmith and Silversmith. Some of these workers expanded their business into pawning which quickly turned into banking. This prompted them to use IOU notes (now called banknotes,) that the clients held to prove they have a deposit at the bank.

A growing confusion ensued when the number of banks that issued banknotes proliferated, each having a different value, and each presenting a different level of risk for, some of the smiths went under because of anyone of many reasons. And this is what prompted the government to intervene by creating the central bank, giving it sole authority to print what is called legal tender. Anything else that pretends to be such tender is called bogus currency, and dealt with according to the law.

What happens in the marketplace of ideas at this time resembles very much what used to happen during the transitional period separating the mercantile era from the modern one. It is that you now have individuals and groups telling the world their ideas are genuine currency whereas the opponents can only offer bogus currency.

An example that will show how this works is the article written by Victor Davis Hanson under the title: “Our Make-It-Up World” and the subtitle: “Facts now pale in comparison with the higher truths of progressivism.” It was published on October 30, 2014 in National Review Online. He begins with a question that makes up his first paragraph: “Do bothersome facts matter anymore?” And he starts the next paragraph with the answer: “Not really.” He thus establishes at the outset that he complains about non-facts (or lies) being peddled as facts.

This done, he lists a number of non-factual lies which, he says, were presented as truths. Let's look at the first one: “Americans were assured that … Obamacare allowed us to keep our doctors and health plans, and lowered the deficit.” But the truth is that only a projection was made to this effect before the fact, not a false presentation after the fact. Whether or not the projection panned out when the time came is another matter. The fact remains that the projection was an opinion presented as such, whereas the Hanson handling of it is a deliberate deception. This makes of Victor Hanson, and all those like him fabricators of bogus currency with which they flood the marketplace of ideas to discredit others and get credit for their own quackery.

You may go through his entire list, and you'll find that he falsely accuses others of describing as factual what they only presented as personal impressions, possible uncertainties, unsolved contradictions, acts of political gamesmanship and so on and so forth.

But if you strip away from the marketplace of ideas all opinions, impressions, uncertainties, contradictions and games, you'll be left with no market. They may be defective products but they are not bogus currency. In fact, a currency being a single note representing something bigger than itself sitting in a bank vault, its analogy would be the single word or the short sentence that refers to something big written in a book of law.

For example, to designate someone as a terrorist, refuse to negotiate with kidnappers, forbid future Congresses from dealing with UN agencies that recognize Palestine as a state – are words or sentences that refer to bogus laws passed in the middle of the night with no more quorum to back them than me writing a million dollar IOU note with not an ounce of gold to back it in my non-existent vault.

This has always been the specialty of Jews, and they are the ones flooding the marketplace with bogus ideas that have caused those who listened to them – mainly the Americans – great damage already with more to come.

Jews were never ready for Nationhood

The Jews are not ready for nationhood and have never been. Most of the world understands this reality as have been the thinking Jews who recognized that the idea of Jewishness is incompatible with the idea of an independent state because Judaism can only exist by depending on someone else.

When thinking about a group of Jews living in isolation from other ethnic groups, and trying to be self-sufficient in matters vital to their existence, two metaphors expressed as sayings come to mind. There is the one about all of them being chiefs and no Indians. And there is the one about too many cooks spoiling the broth. These images fit the situation exactly because Jews are taught from birth that they are special. They are told repeatedly they were put on Earth not to serve anyone but to be served by everyone.

This is how Jews have lived since they came together as a group, adopting as their religion the ideology of supremacy over everyone else. The consequence has been that everyone throughout the expanse of the planet and throughout time has rejected them … quietly at first, and then violently. This led humanity to the realization that it had a Jewish problem. To solve it, some people arranged for the Jews to have a homeland of their own where they were supposed to learn fending for themselves, stop pestering others, and become a normal group like everyone else.

But nearly seven decades later, the homeland they were given (which they named Israel) has absorbed a trillion dollars in donations, and has achieved nothing that would cheer the hearts of those who wished to see the experiment succeed. The Jews (called Israelis when in Israel) have only managed to poison the region where they settled. They also endangered the planet by starting numerous adventures, thus forcing other nations to come to the rescue – and in so doing risked a clash with powers that had legitimate interests in the region.

One of the big powers standing beside Israel through thick and thin has been the United States of America. It is generally accepted that without its support, Israel would not have lasted a year. But, as expected, Israel has come to the end of its current cycle by having a falling out with America, considered to be Israel's only “friend,” lawyer, supporter, supplier, bank-roller, bodyguard and what have you.

Two articles were written about that falling out by two American Jews – one fanatically pro-Israel no matter what it does; the other pro-Israel but wishing that it will soon realize it has limits, and that it is entirely dependent on America.

Both articles were published on October 28, 2014; one under the title: “The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations Is Officially here,” written by Jeffrey Goldberg and appearing in The Atlantic magazine. The other came under the title: “Bibi and Barack on the Rocks” and the subtitle: “The White House's resort to petty insults risks a strategic relationship.” Written by Bret Stephens, the column appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

Stephens wants the readers to believe that the relationship between America and Israel is one between two equals … such as in a marriage where the wife may depend financially on the husband but is nevertheless equal to him. Equal to him that is, until such time that she can stand on her two feet financially. This is when she gains the upper hand, and makes it clear to him that in case of divorce, she wins. This being the Stephens theory, he blames the troubles on the White House for starting the dispute by insulting Netanyahu. And he ends the article by saying that Israel can now live without America's aid.

Goldberg, on the other hand, has no such illusions. He maintains throughout the article that Israel is the junior partner in the relationship, and while Netanyahu and his ministers may be using the current crisis to their political advantage: “for Israel's future as an ally of the United States, this formula is a disaster.”

But no matter which side you take, you come to realize that this is a Jewish tragedy playing itself not as an original but as a sequel to many other cycles that never seem to end.

The truth is that Jews have never been ready for nationhood. They are not now, and never will they be.

Legalizing the illicit and crying foul

The editors of the Washington Post dished out yet another attack on Egypt. This was expected because it is known that instructions to do so come to them – steady stream – from occupied Tel Aviv. They published the piece in the Post under the title: “Stop U.S. support for the repressive regime in Egypt” on October 28, 2014. It is poor in content but it stinks mightily anyway. Analyzing it requires the reviewer to treat it like mental poop from the intellectually anorexic. It is not a nice thing to work on but it is a job that must be done.

Because the editorial will have no effect on the positions it is discussing, it will be better not to waste time or energy analyzing it from this angle. In fact, you encounter something more important that is crying out for attention when you get to the end of the article … and this is where time and energy must be spent. The point that the editors make is this: “the administration should be defending what remains of Egypt's democratic opposition and civil society from Mr. Sissi.”

And this prompts you to ask: Do these people have the mental capacity to see that when they do something to someone, this someone and everyone else will be tempted to do the same thing to them? Could they not see that in doing so, they would be legalizing the illicit? Can they not understand that when they teamed up with Israel to try and sabotage the Iranian nuclear facilities, they ushered the new age of open season for the practice of cyber warfare? Are they so enamored with every Jewish peculiarity, they will advocate the destruction of Civilization to please the Jews?

Have these people not come to grips with the reality that a group of nobodies in the Third World equipped with a device of social media can establish contact with what “remains” of America's democratic or undemocratic opposition, as well as with its civil or uncivil society, and “defend” them? And what would it mean to defend characters such as these? Think of the possibilities, editors of the Washington post, and don't you dare come cry foul on my shoulder because my reaction will not be to comfort you.

When America scored big victories during the Second World War, it thought of itself as being the policeman of the world, and played the role militarily. Not once – yes, not once – did it do a job good enough to merit a thank you note from the rest of humanity. For example, it made such a mess on the Korean Peninsula, it created a nuclear monster in North Korea. It made a mess in Vietnam and suffered a humiliating defeat from which it has not recovered. It made the kind of mess in Iraq that demonstrated once and for all you can get kicked in the butt by the backward despite your technological superiority. The same goes for America's defeat in the even more backward Afghanistan.

After trying and failing to get America involved in more military adventures in the Arab and Muslim worlds, the Jewish leaders of America cooperated with Israel, and they put down a strategy for using the superpower to establish themselves as the morality policeman of the world. To this end, they turned the Congress and a good part of the State Department into what you might call a Jewish Bench for the World. From that vantage point, they started passing judgment on such things as the human rights situation in the places where they have designs, and where they wish to make their presence felt.

And no one in the world is spared because nothing is sacred except Israel. It is allowed to maintain the criminal occupation of Palestine, practice a virulent form of criminal apartheid, and allowed to mass murder civilians that cannot defend themselves nor have someone defending them. Israel and the Jews are able to do all that precisely because America stands as a sentinel protecting Israel from criticism and from any military action by a foreign power that might clip its wings.

And in the same way that America has become the military has-been of the world despite what it is able to field in terms of weaponry, the Jews are slowly but surely turning it into the moral, cultural and humanitarian has-been of the world despite its past accomplishments in these fields.

What a shame! What a pity!

Deliberate Fear mongering or real Paranoia?

Something like 8,000 people die in America every day due to old age, diseases, accidents and crimes. One percent of them or about 80 cases are listed as crimes. This brings the yearly total to about 30 thousand.

When you add (1) the number of missing persons who are never found, (2) the estimated numbers that are not reported because no one cared for them in life, and (3) the number of murders that are made to look like natural deaths or accidents, the number of crimes committed in America every day doubles or even triples. This brings the yearly total from the officially recognized 30 thousand to about 100 thousand cases of homicide.

Against this backdrop, the American culture has developed a collection of strange positions with regard to the death cases caused by crime. The most shocking is the one that many, if not most Americans, adopt in the clash between “my” right to bear arms and “your” chances at staying alive. Even after dozens of toddlers are murdered by someone barely older than them, the Americans rush – not to denounce the gun culture that is responsible for the horror – but rush their checks to the gun lobby that fights to preserve the culture of death.

About three decades ago, a new attitude developed in America. To be sure, it is now held mostly by politicians and the media types who work hard to spread it among the general public. That would be the necessity for America to exact revenge on those abroad who murder an American living among them or just passing through. In fact, there was a time when hundreds of American troops were blown up in Lebanon, and America responded by pulling the remaining troops out of that country. Now America does everything it can to deal with the killers even if the death of Americans appears to be accidental.

Why is that? The answer is surprising because the signal to do so came from Israel which has been responsible (together with the Jewish Americans who implement its instructions) for much of the cultural changes that have occurred in America during those decades. The odd thing is that the signal to avenge the death of Americans abroad came at the same time that officials in Israel were pooh poohing the death of American tourists in Israel – something that happened, usually by accident, during the intifada. The Israeli officials were saying that Americans were safer being in Israel even during the revolt, than they were in America at peace time.

Still, America followed the Israeli instructions based on the argument that if it did not respond tit for tat, bad people all over the world will be encouraged to kill more Americans. But guess what. The opposite happened because a cat-and-mouse game, dubbed war, was launched. It attracted a lost generation of back-alley kids from the Third World who had nothing to keep them busy, and pitted them against the most powerful military the world has ever known. The war is still ongoing, and the kids seem to enjoy it tremendously. So are the Israelis who want to see America embroiled in a never ending war against the rest of the world.

And out of this scrimmage sprouted something new in America with roots in something old. Taking to heart the Winston Churchill warning that Communism will grow to become an irresistible force that will finish off America, a senator by the name of Joseph McCarthy started a movement (later known as McCarthyism) which regarded almost every Jew as being an agent of Communism given the task of destroying America. And no one profited more from the mentality that developed as a result than Jewish Hollywood where they enjoyed a multi-decade orgy of making science-fiction films about aliens from outer space invading planet Earth by attacking America but failing to destroy it. The aliens symbolized the Communists but no one in the movies called them Jewish.

The bottom line is that the Churchill warning spawned a Cold War between East and West. When it came to an end with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Jews of America – working with their instructors in Israel – made of the Arabs and the Muslims the new faces to fear and hate. Cable channels serving 24/7 were already here, together with perpetual internet websites, and advocacy journalism. And they were all substantially in the hands of the Jewish propaganda machine. They saturated the public square with calls to arm America and to send it fighting the Arabs and the Muslims … fighting them to death or fighting them to eternity.

An example of their work is the article that came under the title: “Vulnerable to the Islamic State” and the subtitle: “A former DHS official says we need a 'full-court press' to confront the group.” It was written by Ryan Lovelace and published on October 27, 2014 in National Review Online. It is a typical dish of the sort that the Jewish propaganda machine has been feeding the American public for several decades.

After listing a litany of points conveying the sense that America is facing an existential threat more serious than anything it faced before, the author tells what it is that Americans must be fearful of. He says two former terrorists were caught in America living in public housing, collecting public-assistance payouts. Also, three teenage American girls were reportedly traveling to Syria to join the Islamic State.

And if you, dear reader, cannot see how much more dangerous this is than the case of dozens of toddlers being murdered by someone barely older than them, you'll never understand why Americans courageously rush their checks to the gun lobby which fights to preserve the right to bear arms ... yet tremble in their boots upon hearing that three adventurous teenage girls tried to travel to Syria.

Two Warnings from two great Republicans

Marco Rubio says that when he was nine years old, something happened in America that left a lasting impression on him. I know what he means because when I was at that same age – say, 28 years earlier or thereabout – things were happening in the world that left a lasting impression on me, even if I did not understand what was happening at the time.

Rubio tells his story in an article he wrote under the title: “A Speech for All Time” and the subtitle: “Republicans must apply the principles of Reagan's 'Time for Choosing' to today's challenges.” The article was published on October 27, 2014 in National Review Online. What Rubio remembers was watching on television the speech that Ronald Reagan gave as he accepted the Republican nomination to run for President of the United States. It was followed by his grandfather telling him about his future in America as he grows up in a free country.

Eventually, Rubio learned that the acceptance speech was but a reflection of another speech that Reagan had given 16 years before that. And what impressed him most in the earlier speech – when he later read it – is that “Reagan warned of the dangers of a growing government and a shrinking private economy.” And so, Rubio grew up believing in this principle as firmly as if it had been written into his DNA for ever.

By contrast, I do not remember a speech that was given twelve years earlier than that when I was nine years old. But I remember the Korean War and the French involvement in Vietnam. I remember the deep sadness I saw expressed on the faces of the adults as they listened to the news on the radio. In the absence of a television screen to look at, their faces were the images that etched into my DNA for ever. The medium is indeed the message.

It was many years later that I learned about a Republican President in America named Dwight Eisenhower who was warning at about that time of the consequences in letting the Military Industrial Complex get too big. Even though he had come from the army, he feared that a big military would ruin the economy that sustains it, thus turn the whole enterprise into a self-defeating exercise. I instantly took to his idea.

From that time to this day, the Republican Party has been navigating between the two issues of big government and a big military. Sadly, however, some of its members have ignored the Eisenhower warning, and have promised that a big military and a strong economy can be had simultaneously. They point to what happened during the Reagan years when, after the downturn of the Carter years, the economy picked up at the same time that Reagan was beefing up the military.

There is some truth to that, but despite the apparent cause-and-effect relationship, growth in the economy happened only during the first half of the Reagan presidency. Then, like any normal economy, the Reagan curve began to turn downward, reaching bottom during the presidency of George Bush 41 who lost his re-election as a result. After that, the economy followed the normal curve yet again, and started to grow during the Clinton Presidency. If there is a lesson to be learned here, it is that the economic cycle is alive and well, and nothing can be done to repeal it.

What is refreshing about the Marco Rubio article is that he does not make false promises. He is adamant about the danger of big government (which is a conservative idea) as he talks about the necessity of reviving the conservative principles. This is to be expected. But he adds that “today, we need modern reforms that recognize modern realities: that our country now faces global competition for jobs.”

Rubio has not elaborated on that, but he would do well to do it before the others begin to muddy the water and force everyone to make promises that cannot be kept. He can anchor himself solidly in the Eisenhower principle which says that a big military will kill the economy that feeds it.

There is a conservative logic in that. It is that the military is the biggest institution in government. And if, like Reagan says, big government ruins the economy, then big military must also ruin the economy.

And anyone running for office in America under the conservative banner should stay on the side of both Eisenhower and Reagan if they want to win the conservative vote, and win converts to their cause.

Being fanatic about the Fanaticism of others

When discussing certain subjects, Ralph Peters does not mask his passion for what he believes in, and for what he rejects out of hand. You know what this is, my friend? It is the very definition of fanaticism. And what Ralph Peters is fanatic about this time is the fanaticism of the people he names in his latest article.

That article came under the title: “The Joy of Killing for Allah,” and the subtitle: “Why our 'messaging' won't stop terror.” It was published in National Review Online on October 27, 2014. The point of the presentation boils down to this: There is no use talking to some people; they are evil, and so set in their ways, nothing will move them. The implication being that the only way there is to deal with these people is to engage them in battle and eradicate them from the face of the Earth if we can, or neutralize them to a total paralysis if we can't.

Despite the reference to Allah in the title, which invokes the thought of the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL,) and the attraction it has on those in the “West” who listen to its message and become homegrown terrorists, Peters mentions other bad characters as well. They are the Iranians, Vladimir Putin and the people who hate each other (with good reason) in Iraq. And neither does he spare what he calls “the educated, privileged and protected” in Washington whose latest vogue is a “bastard, idiot child of liberal parentage.”

He resents the latter because they harbor the conviction of what he calls the “non-judgmental” Left which believes that better messaging will help the evil ones (Muslims) see the light, and become as good as Episcopalians. But this will not happen, he says, because our message cannot compete against the message of the other side when all that we can offer to our youngsters is a minimum wage job stocking shelves at Walmart. Against that, the other side offers acceptance, belonging, structure, an explanation for past failures, power, purpose, justification for hate and impulses, revenge, respect, the thrill and ecstasy of killing, fame and paradise, says Ralph Peters.

By now, he makes it clear that he considers the effort of the Left to be folly. To give an example, he singles out President Obama mentioning that beheading was not Islamic. To put that in perspective, he asks the readers to consider the King of Saudi Arabia saying that Americans aren't true Christians. And this is where the author shows how much in error his approach has been. The fact is that Obama did not say that someone – anyone at all – was not a Muslim. He simply said that an act as cruel as beheading the innocent was not Islamic. This would be like the King of Saudi Arabia saying the Holocaust was not a Christian act. In fact, many people in this world would say amen that.

Moreover, to lend credibility to his own rant, Peters embraces the response that came from the self-proclaimed Caliphate of the Islamic State when he mocked President Obama – a mocking he did based on the same false premise that gripped Peters. Still undeterred, Peters goes on from there to do something that is even more astounding. Get this, he gives a mini-lesson on Islam and its variations, ranging from the syncretic Javanese to the Neo-Wahhabism as they may or may not be understood or practiced by al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, Jabhat al-Nusra and the rest. Wow! Call him wizard Ralph Peters, and give him a PhD or two in instant religious self-education.

But then, an inkling of light begins to gleam at this point perhaps to offer some relief. It seems that our author may have finally realized how absurd he has been all along. The indication to this effect is that he begins to turn against himself. Look at this: “All of us associated with the news business immediately become hostages when word breaks of a significant (or simply titillating) terrorist event. We in the media … gave the murderer riveting publicity. [He] got more air time … than any political candidate facing midterm election paid for.” Self-criticism basically intends to say: I may have been wrong about everything I said.

And he does not stop here. He elaborates further on how the media encourages the potential copycats to follow suit by promising them the reward of fame if they will embrace the message of the terrorists who, themselves, promise great rewards to those who die for the cause. And what loser would reject such a pile of promises?

This leads Ralph Peters to conclude that the terrorist recruit may not be truly irrational. Which is why he should seriously consider studying what the Europeans were saying about each other during their civil and cross-border wars … when these had religious and secular undertones. The savagery of the propaganda as well as the acts that were committed against civilians and military alike make today's horror look like child play.

And yet, talking to each other over the centuries made these people see the light … after which they came to tolerate each other, be they Catholics or Protestants – Jesuits or Episcopalians.

The new Bolton that's the same old Bolton

Ask yourself two questions and try to respond to them as honestly as you can. First, would North Korea have been tempted to develop nuclear weapons, were no American troops stationed in South Korea? Second, would Iran have created the formidable military machine that it did, had America not armed and encouraged Iraq's Saddam Hussein when he attacked Iran?

If you answered no to both questions, you are a well-adjusted, normal and objective human being who sees things as they are and not as you imagine them to be. Of course, you could be wrong because you're not a super being that can see hidden things. But until you see evidence to the contrary, you make sure to limit your speculative ability to the task of speculating without acting on such speculation.

The problem is that some people are not like that. Whether they know something or they don't; whether they know a little about it or they know a lot, they speculate about what they don't know. And they do so even if they know that the chances are close to nil there is more to know about something. And then, however uncertain they may be about their speculation, they still ask someone to act on it as if it were a proven fact.

For a long time, this had been the attitude that John Bolton took with regard to every foreign subject he handled. As to asking someone to act on his speculations, he advocated an American or a NATO military response to everything every time. But because he was harshly criticized from all sides for being an unabashed warmonger, he modified his position a little. He now says basically the same thing as he did before, but he says it in a more subtle way.

That position comes out clearly in the article he wrote under the title: “How Little We Know About North Korea” and the subtitle: “The fact that we still can't explain Kim Jong Un's recent absence should be unsettling.” It was published on October 24, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal. From this alone, you can see that he admits he is unsettled for knowing so little about North Korea. As the rest of the article will demonstrate, this lack of knowledge is what motivates him to call for the measures that he does.

He says the following in the first paragraph of the article: “One theory is as good as the next for assessing what actually happens inside North Korea.” And he says the following in the second paragraph: “North Korea has conducted three nuclear tests. Rumors of a fourth circulate constantly.” Thus, after saying he has no clue what is going on in North Korea, he admits to relying on rumors to assert that the intent behind North Korea's ballistic-missile program is “to provide delivery vehicles to reach targets world-wide, most notably in the U.S.” What a magnificent pretzel-like logic!

But he does not lack tactics because he now tactfully makes the following stark admission: “what the U.S. doesn't know about North Korea's leadership it also doesn't know about the country's nuclear capabilities.” And he laments: “Our inability to do more than speculate means that if something is happening behind the veil, our capacity to respond is impaired.”

So then, what to do under these circumstances? Well, he has a two-part answer to that question. First, he says: “the focus must shift to stopping [Pyongyang] from cooperating with Iran and other would-be nuclear powers.” Second, this will require revival of “the Bush Administration's Proliferation Security Initiative.”

He doesn't even hint at what he sees in that Initiative. This is deliberate because his intention is to interpret it the way that will suit him when the time will come. And as far as we are concerned, it would not be engaging in speculation to say that what suits him will be to being his old self again, and advocate war, war, war.

But for now, he wants the world to think of him as having converted to a dovish stance. And so he ends the article on the sweetest note that he can imagine: “The U.S. objective is reunifying the Korean Peninsula as peacefully as possible ... [what] threatens this objective is North Korea's very existence. The U.S. should redouble its effort to reach that goal.”

What he says in effect is that North Korea's existence must be eliminated to make possible the “peaceful” reunification of the Peninsula. This is like saying rape is required to maintain virginity. It's that pretzel logic again.

An Example on how Democracies decay

Everything in the universe decays. It is calculated that a hundred trillion years from now nothing will be left but the relic of a universe that has died a “heat death.” This is because everything – including all that is matter and all that is energy – will have been reduced to heat waves. Even these waves will continue to get cooler and cooler, approaching the absolute zero temperature while the remnant of the universe continues to expand.

Abstract systems such as the idea of democracy also come and go. They start to decay the moment that they are conceived, and they keep decaying till nothing is left of them. The question to ask is how does a democracy die? Well, we have an example of this in the article that was written by Andrew C. McCarthy under the title: “The Lone-Wolf Canard” and the subtitle: “The violence in 'violent extremism' is terrorism even if it's performed alone.” It was published on October 25, 2014 in National Review Online.

America, like the rest of the world, is facing a movement that has come to be called many names, two being “terrorism” which is used by some people such as Andrew McCarthy; and “violent extremism” which is used by other people. Whatever it is called, everyone agrees that the movement must not be allowed to remain or allowed to grow and impose itself because it threatens what civilized living stands for. And most everyone has ideas as to how we must confront the movement to vanquish it or at least neutralize it for good.

When democracy was at the height of its glory, and something like this happened to concern the majority of people, the leaders of the community, whatever its size or composition, got together in a “collegial” manner to exchange ideas. When done, they picked the nuggets from all that was said and synthesized them into a plan of action. Putting the plan into effect, they dealt with whatever was threatening the community; and they often succeeded at ending the threat in a definitive way.

And then, signs of decay began to appear in the system of democracy because the people who got together to exchange ideas could not get off the talking phase and go to the picking of nuggets phase. They kept talking without agreeing on anything substantial, behaving in a manner that was not “collegial” but one that was more like “confrontational.” And even when they agreed on a small point, as they sometimes did, they could not go on to the next phase because the atmosphere was so badly poisoned, the people viewed each other as enemies.

Was that a natural decay that could not be avoided? Or was it a decay precipitated by an outside agent – one that is alien to the natural evolution of democratic movements? Well, anyone that is old enough to remember what happened during the past fifty years already knows what will take future historians a long time to establish. It is that the Jewish lawyers gave supremacy to the idea of confrontational justice, even confrontational debates. They took the concept into the courts, and took it from there to every place where they went, such as the Congress, the bureaucracy, the cultural institutions and of course, the media.

This has had the effect of paralyzing America … which was the goal of the Jews from the start. But paralyzing America meant paralyzing it only in what concerns the business of the American people. This being one half of the story, the other half was that the energy that would have gone into doing America's business was diverted to doing the business of Israel and the Jews. And this is why you now see legislators of both parties express indifference, disdain and loathing when asked to do something for the American people. But they rush to fill the needs of Israel and the Jews with the restless dedication you see in the zoo at feeding time.

What you see in the Andrew McCarthy article, who happens to be a lawyer, is not an analysis that can lead to ideas as to how terrorism, as he calls it, must be handled. Instead, he engages in a hair-splitting discussion as to the wisdom in calling the phenomenon violent extremism instead of terrorism. 1600 words to do that, and not one word suggesting how to solve the problem.

But what difference does it make calling it one thing or the other? The answer to this question should be viewed as further proof that this whole thing has been the work of Jews from the start. It is that calling the phenomenon violent extremism will make it an American problem that must be solved for the benefit of Americans. But calling it terrorism will make it a Jewish problem that can only be solved in a manner that serves Israel and the Jews.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Andrew McCarthy is a creature of the Jewish Establishment; and he is here to serve his creators at the expense of his fellow Americans.

The pompous Ass that betrayed himself

Once in a while, as I scan the new postings on the website of National Review Online, I encounter an article written by Tom Rogan. I start reading it to see if there is something worth responding to, and then do what I do with other works, which is to leave it before reaching the end if it doesn't sound promising enough early on.

But then, I started leaving the Tom Rogan articles for another reason also. It happened when he began to say something like: “As I noted before...” My reaction to that has been to say to myself: If what you noted before was as stupid as what you're mouthing now, I have no use for you. And I would leave the article in search of something more worthy to spend my time on.

This time, he did it so early in the article, and did it with so much gall that I decided to read the article to the end just so that I see for myself what it is that turns this guy on. Make no mistake about it, a guy that keeps saying, as I noted on a previous occasion, is one who sees himself as a roused stud ready to impregnate all of humanity with his divine semen … and perhaps populate the Earth with little gods in his image.

All of that comes to mind upon reading the article he wrote under the title: “The Traitors Who Join ISIS” and the subtitle: “Western nations have fought shy of enforcing their treason laws. They shouldn't.” It was published on October 23, 2014 in National Review Online. He begins with: “As I noted yesterday...” and wastes little time dividing humanity into at least three categories, placing them at different levels. On top, he places the four English speaking countries: Australia, Canada, the U.K., and the U.S. – properly lined in alphabetical order.

Below that, at the second level, he places the other Western countries which, he says, “honor with gratitude” the first four because they are democracies. But he cautions that “tragically some Westerners are betraying that honor by joining the Islamic State's global movement.” We must infer from this pronouncement that he places the Islamic State at a level below the second. Whether this is third or fourth depends on where he places everyone else – which he neglected to mention in this article. Maybe next time.

From this point on, he speaks in terms of “we” and “they.” We, being the four Anglomocracies (my term, not his) and they, being the Islamic State and everyone that joins it. We stand for freedom and the rule of law; they stand for totalitarianism and the tyranny of one psychotic man, he goes on to say. And yet, there are 165 souls from Canada, Australia and America along with hundreds of Britons who joined the Islamic State, he adds. And he explains that these are “Westerners who detest their democratic society.” They are hateful minds inspired to turn toward terrorism at home, he stresses.

What to do about them? Charge them with treason, he says. It might be a little difficult to do it in Britain where it hasn't been done since 1946, but not so in America where it was done as recently as the late 1990s, he asserts. And he tells how American law defines treason: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid an comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death [or imprisonment]...”

Well, if this defines treason, what does “owing allegiance” mean? Does that come with birthright, or do you have to get elected to office at which time you swear allegiance to the Republic? Also, when is an act considered to be “levying war against the United States?” Who is an “enemy” of America in the absence of a declaration of war by the Congress? What constitutes giving the enemy “aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere?”

The thing is that until the advent of ISIS or perhaps its predecessor al-Qaeda, no country was more prone to seeing its citizens join the civil wars and cross-border wars of other countries than the Anglomocracies. And many of those whom Rogan would classify as enemies of America went to fight the Assad regime, the undeclared enemy of America. Would he consider these kids to be traitors? If they are, what about the American Jews who would not volunteer to serve in the American military but join the Israeli army whether or not they have dual citizenship?

And so, Tom Rogan ends the article the way that a pompous ass would. He basically says he personally visited the graves of the soldiers who died fighting. And he feels he honored them by his presence.

Look down about a foot below your navel, Tom. You'll find you're no stud. You're a pompous castrated eunuch.

Driven by Delusion and Knee-jerk Reaction

It took a group like the editors of the Wall Street Journal to make it possible having the two words “delusion” and “knee-jerk” in the same sentence. They did it by writing a piece under the title: “North Korea's Nuclear Breakthrough” and the subtitle: “Now it can put a warhead atop a ballistic missile. The U.S. needs defenses.” They published the piece on October 25, 2014 in the Journal.

Like they say in the subtitle, North Korea has achieved the technological breakthrough to make the warheads small enough to be carried by a rocket and delivered to far away targets. And the editors admit they know about that because General Curtis Scaparroti, who commands U.S. forces in South Korea, said so. What they omitted saying, however, is that the General added he had no proof of what he was saying. It means that his apparent assertion was a hunch he could not suppress or a deliberate act aimed at starting a debate on the subject.

And so, the editors of the Journal took the bait by plunging into the debate and by delivering what was to be expected of them – the knee-jerk reaction which came in the second part of the subtitle: “The U.S. needs defenses.” To make it sound like this is an important event (somewhat unexpected or at least unexpected to have happened so soon) they go into the brief history of a similar debate that took place a year and a half ago in which they also participated. To make it sound ominous, they begin this part of the conversation with the following: “Shocked? You shouldn't be.” Well, they are not really asking if the readers are shocked; they are using a psychological ploy to suggest that the readers ought to be shocked.

The purpose of taking the readers to a high level of anxiety before proceeding with their presentation is that they know what comes at the end of such a debate. It is that sooner or later, the North Koreans will have miniaturized the bomb enough to place on top of a rocket. In fact, they make that point themselves and try to use it to their advantage before someone else does so, and uses it to neutralize their argument. Here is how they do that: “the important point is that a country with the technological wherewithal to enrich uranium in advanced centrifuges will figure out how to miniaturize the bomb. The technology is nearly 60 years old.”

We are back to square one because the mental gymnastics they performed, starting with a knee-jerk reaction, has added absolutely nothing new to the debate. In fact, the masters of the psychological ploy now make the fatal Freudian slip that buries their argument. Before moving to the second phase of their presentation, they try to consolidate the first phrase but end up shooting themselves in the knee. They do that by quoting the Foreign Minister of North Korea who said something that is in itself irrelevant. But what is relevant is that they start this part of the conversation by referring to the possible miniaturization of the bomb with: “that expectation ought to inform Washington's policy making going forward.” Pow! They now admit they cannot be certain North Korea has achieved the breakthrough but they “expect” that it must have.

They now move to the second part of the presentation which is the delusional part. Having kneecapped themselves knee-jerking into and out of a discussion that came to naught, they counsel the abandonment of the “illusion” that carrots can induce Pyongyang to a better behavior. They want to see the economic boycott of the country, the targeting of its leaders' finances, and a policy that seeks regime change which will include campaigns informing the people of North Korea how bad their masters are … as if they didn't know already.

But the editors of the Journal know that all of this is idle talk because no option was kept out of consideration, and nothing that can be tried was neglected. So why are they advocating something they know will be ignored? They did it to pave the way for what comes next. It is this mother of all delusions: “Israel proved the worth of one BMD [Ballistic Missile Defense] system … and now would be a good time for the Obama Administration to make a similar major investment.”

The fact is that there is no such a thing as a BMD in Israel. There is an ordinary warning system that is coupled to a network of sirens alerting the population of incoming missiles. It gives the people time to hide in bunkers till the danger is over.

Thankfully, the people in charge of defending the North American Continent know all that, and they know how to do their job. They have quick burning, solid-fuel, extremely fast rockets placed in the vicinity of North Korea. Rather than intercept the ICBMs head on – an impossible task – these rockets will catch them in their slow booster phase right after launch, and knock them out of the sky. Sleep well, editors of the Journal; you are safe.

Juggling the two Ends of every Dichotomy

You may at one time or another had a friend that loathed his or her boss so much, they spoke of him with hate whether he did something or did its opposite. For example, he was an SOB because he gave his employees time off to compensate for overtime worked instead of paying them. And he was an SOB because he paid them instead of giving them time off.

And you may have had a friend that loved his or her boss so much, they spoke of her lovingly whether she did something or did its opposite. For example, she was sweet because she gave her employees time off to compensate for overtime worked instead of paying them. And she was sweet because she paid them instead of giving them time off.

This is the sort of thing you encounter in real life. Most of the time, however, you do not react to it as much as you did when reading about it in two short paragraphs. That's because this form of writing has the effect of time lapse photography where the events of a full day are shown to unfold in a few seconds. What is shocking is not only that such people exist but that they are not crazy for doing what they do. Whether it happened instinctively or by meticulous design, these people have discovered that behaving in this manner allows them to control those who listen to them.

And if that's not shocking enough, let it be known that a great deal of this sort of behavior goes on at levels considered to be higher than the mundane. Yes, it happens at the level of local politics, and it happens at the level of international politics. The people who made it an indispensable ingredient in their relationships with others are the Jewish organizations who gained fame by calling antisemitic those who say Jewish lobby instead of Israeli lobby. And by calling antisemitic those who say Israeli lobby instead of Jewish lobby. Using this trick or a variation of it has allowed them to take effective control of America in about half a century.

But you don't have to be a Jewish organization to play the game. You may be a lone Jew having a background in psychiatry, and turn yourself into a one-man performer dedicated to serve the Jewish agenda. This is what Charles Krauthammer has done, and you can see his latest performance in an article that came under the title: “Barack Obama, Bewildered Bystander” and the subtitle: “He's angry, but not angry enough to fix what's wrong.” It was published on October 23, 2014 in National Review Online.

The apparent dichotomy concerning him this time is that of a President of the Republic that may be calm and running the affairs of the nation by cerebral force and a cool hand, or he may be an emotional being that is guided by instinct, responding by knee-jerk reflexes to every incident that comes to his attention. The fact is that most Presidents combine the two characteristics in them, with a bias towards one side or the other. Barack Obama happens to be biased towards the cool hand type … but someone that will show emotions when the situation is extreme enough.

And the game that a Krauthammer will play under the circumstances is to accuse the President of ineptitude for being cerebral instead of being emotional. And to accuse the President of ineptitude for being emotional instead of being cerebral. This is what the author does in the first part of the article. But being the Jew that he is, he tries to have it both ways, and thus demolishes his own theory by the time he gets to the second part of his article.

He does that by trying to call the President a bewildered bystander that is so incompetent he does not know what he is doing. And he does it by calling the President a manipulator who knows exactly what he wants – which is big government – and goes about realizing his plan by employing shrewd methodical steps while displaying “calculated outrage” when he must, so as to reassure the public that he is human after all.

And Charles Krauthammer ends his presentation by suggesting that the public should feel uneasy about the situation. Unease is where a society needs to be for someone like him or the Jewish organizations to start the process of controlling that society, or to deepen the control if they already have it.

The never-ending Series of calamitous Advice

Joseph Lieberman is at it again. He teamed up this time with Christian Beckner, intent once again on giving the administration advice related to security matters. He, and a number of others like him, have been doing this sort of thing for years; a span of time during which the Middle East got into the predicament where it is today, and the North American Continent saw itself get edgy.

The two men co-authored an article that came under the title: “The Homegrown Jihadist Threat Grows” and the subtitle: “ISIS's online recruitment is reaching into North America, yet the Obama administration still has no strategy to fight it.” It was published on October 24, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal. If Lieberman had any sense of what intellectual honesty stands for, he would have written a more appropriate article under a title such as this: “The Homegrown Jihadist Threat Grows, where did we all go wrong?” instead of accusing the administration of lacking a strategy to fight it.

Lieberman and Beckner begin to lay out their view by citing the story of the three teenage American girls that tried to join the Islamic State. They, and many others, were attracted by “online predators … operating the most sophisticated propaganda machine,” say the two authors, quoting other people to reinforce their point.

And so they lament that “despite all this, the U.S. government still has no strategy to counter ISIS's and al Qaeda's violent online propaganda when it is directed at Americans.” But they quickly back off and admit to the outreach program that several government agencies are running to discuss the threat with community leaders. But then, Lieberman and Beckner add that this is done “without a comprehensive strategy for countering the online radicalization of U.S. citizens.”

Well, do they offer a strategy of their own? No they don't. Instead, they borrow the trick used extensively by the “Hate Obama Machine” otherwise known as Fox News, and they throw a catalog of instances when they believe that someone from the Obama administration (1) had said something, (2) seems to have said something, or (3) gave the impression that the administration was working on a comprehensive strategy or about to do so.

While discussing the subject in this tone, they reveal the work that is being done by the administration, citing among others, the creation of the “interagency Working Group to Counter Online Radicalization to Violence.” And they lament once more that: “There is no evidence this new Interagency Working Group has done anything.”

But what did they expect could have come out of that agency if it had done something? They don't say what they expected. They, however, pull another “Fox News” trick. They say what the interagency did not do: “it did not look at the relationship between domestic and international radicalization,” they say. Are these two clowns promising that if the interagency did that, America's problems will be solved? No, they are not making this promise. After all, Fox News is not here to solve problems; it is here to amplify America's hatred for America … and this motivation is now shared by Lieberman and Beckner.

Then – in the unmistakable style known to be vintage Jewish – Lieberman and Beckner end the article by making a prediction and a false promise: “the Obama administration should make this strategy a priority. That would help the U.S. combat the spread of violent Islamist ideology, and reduce the threat of homegrown terrorist attacks in the U.S.” It is the same old KOOL Aid that brought the Middle East to the predicament where it is today, and the North American Continent to the edge.

Let me tell these two characters something they must never forget. When, as a teenager, I went to Egypt with the family a year after the armed assault on that country by the colonial powers of the day, there were something like ten so-called pirate stations beaming hate propaganda against the country and its president Gamal Abdel Nasser. That was in addition to the BBC, the Israeli and French stations. They did nothing to turn the people against their country because the people felt that their country was not trying to fool them.

Likewise, America will win the propaganda war when and only when the Jews will take a sabbatical, leave the American culture to Americans, and watch the wounds heal from a distance. They can then try to integrate into the American fabric as Americans, not as Zionists in transition.

Relax, Ladies and Things will get better

The ladies referred to in the title are Mona Eltahawy who is an American writer of Egyptian origin, and Michelle Dunne as well as Katie Bentivoglio, both of whom are of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace. All three ladies seem unhappy with what is going on in Egypt when they should be happy for what has been accomplished so far, and what is in the offing for this magnificent civilization.

Dunne and Bentivoglio co-authored an article that came under the title: “Egypt's Student Protests: The Beginning or the End of Youth Dissent?” published on October 22, 2014 on the website of Carnegie Endowment for Peace. As to Eltahawy, her article came under the title: “The Mirage of the 'New Egypt,'” published on October 24, 2014 in the New York Times.

Mona Eltahawy speaks of “continuing the goals of our revolution.” As I understand it, she was in Tahrir Square when the revolution erupted more than three years ago but I saw no indication that she was associated with any of the movements that brought about the revolution. If she means to say she speaks as an Egyptian, then she must accept what the majority of Egyptians want, and that is illustrated in her article even though she seems to tweak reality a little bit – not by commission but by omission.

Here is the pertinent passage: “On the same day that Mr. Sisi was selling the world a shiny, prosperous 'New Egypt,' Farag Rizk, 48, hanged himself from a billboard overlooking a busy highway outside Cairo.” She went on to explain that suicide is a huge taboo in Egypt, and that Mr. Rizk was denied a raise “leaving him unable to afford his children's school fees.” What she omitted saying is that Mr. Sisi was speaking of a prosperous Egypt he wants to build, not an Egypt that exists at this time.

This being the case, all those in Egypt facing a hard time to the same degree as Mr. Rizk would rather hear Mr. Sisi's speech at the UN in which he pleaded for foreign investment to rebuild a country that was badly hurt after more than tree years of revolution, than read the words of a former young Egyptian, now an American living the cushy life, and making tons of money romanticizing the memory of a youth movement that will not add one loaf of bread on someone's table, or send someone's child to school before a desperate father commits suicide.

And this brings us to the Dunne and Bentivoglio article in which they make the following point in the very first paragraph of their article: “popular support for President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi comes largely from older Egyptians.” Yes ladies, these are the people who put bread on the table of their families, and they are the ones putting their kids to school so that they get as good an education as Mona Eltahawy ... but hopefully remain a little more mature about the realities of life.

The two authors, Dunne and Bentivoglio, go on to document what the universities are doing to dampen the revolutionary fervor which continues to motivate some students, and causes them to put in jeopardy the future of the other students as well as the country. They make it sound like this is very bad for the country because they seem to believe that a body hanging from a pole is a more cheerful sight than a loaf of bread on the table of a family in need, or the sight of a child going to school.

In addition to the title of the article in which they express their yearning for the “youth dissent” they witnessed in Tahrir Square more than three years ago, they have two subheadings that tell of their concerns. One subheading reads: “Police raids, expulsions, and bans;” the other reads: “President Sisi's youth problem.”

There are two things to say about this. The first is that Michelle Dunne seems to have learned the lesson that if she wants to be taken seriously, she must never, ever again end an article on Egypt by calling on the American government to punish that country for not listening to her.

The second thing is that the youth movement in Egypt was supported by the older generation which thanked them, even encouraged them to have it. While a handful of young people want to have a never-ending revolution, they are in the minority. The rest want to go to school, and so do their parents – all of whom have seen enough revolution for now.

Get off Egypt's case, Michelle, and let its people decide for themselves what they want to do with their country.

The Medium cum a Message cum the Medium

It came to my attention not long ago that Marshall McLuhan thought of my writing style as being the most expressive of the theory he was espousing, mainly that the “Medium is the Message.” He would have liked to communicate with me and invite me to do some work with him, except that the Jews decreed this could not be done because my success will mean bad news for the Jewish causes. I must be kept out of the limelight, they said, and so I was till the advent of the internet which changed all that.

I believe this gives me the right to take the McLuhan theory a step further and say that the medium can become the message then become the medium again. To do this, I must first explain how I understand: “The Medium is the Message.” To help me remember the essence of the theory, I boiled it down to the following: There are many ways to convey a message, each way being a medium. There is the spoken way, the written way, the radio medium, the television medium, the film, the theater, the music, the dance … and so on. Delivering a message using anyone of those mediums, shapes the message so differently from its original intent – and doing it in each of the medium's ways – it can be said that the medium has become the message.

Now, given the rash of copycat mass killings in schools and other public places in America, and given the ongoing propaganda war between the Islamic State and the Jewish State … which, after all, has near total monopoly on the English mediums worldwide – I began to wonder if McLuhan's theory did not need to be updated. I saw the individual committing the crime as being a medium onto himself, delivering a message to be copycatted, not using words to express his thoughts, but by committing the heinous act itself. To say the same thing in the language of the proverbial: such acts speak for themselves.

Another layer was added to that view when acts were committed by what were said to be new converts to Islam. I wondered if these people became monsters because they converted to Islam, or they were monsters to begin with, and looked for a way to express their monstrosity in a spectacular way. They may have thought that going on a shooting spree would give them the notoriety they crave, but they will be forgotten in a day or two. If, however, they were to commit an act considered to be terror, they will gain a worldwide notoriety. They may even be considered martyrs by people half way around the globe, and their story will have a longer shelf-life than that of a lone gunman who begs the police to shoot him. They chose to be martyred.

After that came one more layer to be added to the theory that was growing in my head. It appeared as if it had come out of nowhere when every broadcaster I watched stressed the point that the perpetrator was a convert to Islam. Whether or not they knew what they were doing, these broadcasters had created something new. They were telling everyone who may be unhappy with his lot in life that he need not die an inglorious death and be forgotten. He can be a part of something big by converting to Islam and carrying out any act he can pull off, knowing that it will take on a worldwide dimension for being considered an act of terror by virtue of it being linked to Islam.

So now, we have a feedback loop whereby the medium becomes the message that becomes the medium again, and so on indefinitely. Thanks to those broadcasters, the idea is out there telling anyone that wants to know, he can get back at his municipality, town, city, state, province or country by doing something unforgettable, and be rewarded for it. This way, what was the responsibility of those places now becomes the responsibility of Islam. For example, a murder committed by a bitter New Yorker who converted to Islam reflects badly not on New York that embittered him but on Islam that took him in. A Quebecker that commits murder after converting to Islam reflects badly on Islam and not on Quebec that may have treated him badly.

Science, Technology and Pride will decide

Vali R. Nasr wrote an article in which he argues that the electoral calendar both in the United States and Iran will determine how the nuclear talks between Iran and the P5+1 may progress between now and the November 24 deadline, and what the likely outcome will be. The article has the title “A Nuclear Deal, Now or Never,” published on October 22, 2014 in the New York Times.

Of course, the electoral calendar in both countries will be a factor determining what tactics will be used in the poker game that lay ahead – but that's only for the near term. As for the long term, the strategy motivating the two sides remains the more powerful undercurrent that will continue to guide the talks, even contribute to the choice of tactics that each side will make. And the fuel powering that strategy for both sides is national pride, science and the technology of uranium enrichment.

However much hydrocarbon fuel there is on this planet, and even if we ignore its polluting effect, it is a dwindling commodity that will someday be completely used up. That day will not be farther into the future than a century from now. This means that every form of renewable and non-renewable energy will have to be tapped to keep our civilization going. Until a major breakthrough can be made and proven to work, nuclear energy shall remain an energy source we cannot ignore.

The Iranians are well aware of this, and they have the uranium ore that can make them not only self-sufficient in this field but also a major exporter of it, much as they are now in the oil and natural gas fields. And the one thing that every resource rich nation looks forward to achieving is the addition of value to its resources before exporting them. This is done by processing those resources as much as possible before export, rather than maintain the country at the level of being “drawers of water and hewers of wood” by exporting the resources in the raw state, and re-importing them after processing abroad.

Now consider these numbers. A country the size of Iran will eventually need something like a 100 gigawatts of generating capacity to satisfy its own needs, let alone what it will export. An average nuclear power plant has the size of 2 gigawatts which is enough to power the needs of 2 million people. And given that it takes decades to build a network of nuclear plants, Iran cannot wait to start building those plants. This is regardless of whatever else it will do in the field of renewable energy.

Now, the rule of thumb is that a city consumes as much electric energy every 2 weeks as it will take to destroy it were the energy kept in its raw form. That is, whether you use, coal, oil, gas or uranium, if you turn that into explosives rather than use it to generate electricity, you could blow up the city you are servicing once every 2 weeks. Thus, the amount of uranium that Iran will have to process to be self-sufficient in this field will be several times what it is processing now. If it is going to export fuel rods to other countries rather than sell its uranium in a raw state, the number of centrifuges it needs will multiply several times over. And it is the number of centrifuges that is the bone of contention in the negotiations.

To be self-sufficient and to export processed resources – including uranium – is a matter of national pride for Iran. This is what comes into play when the long term strategy of these people is considered. Opposed to this pride, is the national pride of the opponent. But sadly – very, very sadly – that will not be the national pride of America whose self esteem mirrors the self-esteem of those dogs who run to a gambling mogul, drop to their knees and kiss the Jewish ass in return for a donation that amounts to no more than a fart, a Jewish fart.

The pride that will come into play when confronting Iran will be that of World Jewry. This is a string of organizations where the operatives pride themselves on the ability to control others. Their crown achievement has been the success they never tire displaying to the world – the iron hand with which they run the zoo of human animals known as the American Congress.

Iran will risk being bombed by another raving mad American in the mold of a Cheney, a Rumsfeld or a Rove, and will come out of this experience a super giant that no one will stop. But this will not happen because long before America will be done bombing Iran, the nations of the world will have kicked the American ambassadors and consuls out of their territories.

It is said that Iraq broke the back of America. It will be said that Iran turned America into dog food.