I take back the Finger I gave you

There is – giving someone a finger; and there is – giving someone a finger. The first saying means giving someone the middle finger as if to say “up your---.” As to the second, it is short for: I gave you my finger to please you, but now you want the whole arm. So I take back my finger because you don't deserve it.

When it comes to many Jews, you can be certain they'll do what it takes to earn both sayings being thrown at them. You see an example of that when you look at the Jewish responses to what President Obama is doing for them and for Israel. The more he gives them, the more they believe they deserve still more, and so they ask for more and more and still more. And you feel he should say to them: I take back everything nice I said about you, and wish you'd just get out of my line of sight. But you know he won't do that because he is a nice guy.

And there is another example you can look at. It is an article that came under the title: “Reinventing Egypt's Jews,” written by Steven A. Cook and published on June 29 on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations. The author begins his dissertation with a grotesque exaggeration not realizing that everything he'll say to elaborate will contradict the introduction.

Here is how he starts: “After two millennia, it seems Jews are 'in' in the Middle East.” From this point on, he focuses the discussion on the Jews of Egypt. He tells how bad their lot had been for a while before turning good again. But lest he sound like he says “thank you,” he writes what follows: “This should make well-meaning people feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but what is happening in Egypt is actually less rediscovery than reinvention.” Ah, that double-faced guy, equipped with a forked tongue!

But why is he saying this? Because he wants to end the discussion – well, you guessed it – by doing the Jewish thing of asking for more and more and still more. And so, he ends the article like this: “That is not enough. To build that representative society, they [the Egyptians] will have to revise a history that only has a vague resemblance to what they have been telling about their Jewish brothers and sisters.”

Between the introduction and the epilogue, Cook highlights the things that demolish what he said at the start about the Jews not being “in” for two millennia. Here is an example of that: “Egypt's Jewish community never experienced pogrom-like violence. Cairo's synagogues were always well protected.” He goes on to bite the hand that feeds him: “This may have been a cynical effort to draw a distinction between hostility to Israel and Judaism...” And here is how he begins to demolish his own thesis about nothing good happening to Jews for two millennia: “...but importantly, those houses of worship remain as a testament to Judaism's past presence in Egypt.”

He tells in brief the history of the difficult moments that were generated when the relationships became somewhat frayed after 1956 and 1967 when Israel attacked Egypt. The first happened when Israel collaborated with the two colonial powers, France and Britain. The second happened when Israel launched a Pearl Harbor style blitz on the Sinai. Both attacks were repelled, and things returned to normal again.

Other than that, Cook admits: “Jews did play important roles in Egyptian commerce, culture, and politics in the first half of the twentieth century.” But he claws back this “warm and fuzzy” feeling by adding the following: “This Ramadan, Jews are portrayed sympathetically, as authentic Egyptians … [they] are a perfect device through which Egyptians create a tolerant past if only to give the audience hope of a more just and open future.”

Note his use of that “if only”. He means to convey the notion that there is an element of insincerity in what the Egyptians are doing. Well, I have a personal story to tell in this regard. I, my brothers and sisters, grew up during the early stages of our lives, immersed in the French culture. It was the one for which we developed an affinity. We also appreciated the Italian culture which is closely related to the French. And we liked the American because it is universal by its nature.

We could not care less for the Egyptian culture at the time, about which we knew very little. But there was an exception. It is that my mother loved that culture, and at times used to sing to herself the songs of Leila Murad, a Jewish Egyptian movie star who had a brother that wrote the lyrics she sang, and the movie scripts in which she acted. And so, when we went to Egypt, my mother continued to sing the Murad songs while we took to Egypt's own Dalida who performed in French and in Italian.

Mental Cases doubting the Sanity of the Sane

Even though the subject matter is serious, the way that the editors of the New York Daily News discuss it, hints at an element of comedy, though their approach as a whole is sickeningly tedious and tiresome. You get these conflicting emotions when you read: “Buckling to the mullahs,” an editorial that also came under the subtitle: “Counting the many dangers in Obama's approach to the Iran nuclear deal.” It was published on June 28, 2015 in the Daily News.

Speaking of Barack Obama – twice elected President of the United States of America – the editors begin by saying this: “His judgment will determine how easily Iran can acquire a nuclear weapon.” Having decided that his judgment is faulty, they set out to counter it with their own judgment … which they must believe is sound. How do they do that? There is only one way: it is to show that both the President and the Iranian leaders are insane.

And so, they accuse the President of paying a “recklessly dangerous price” by failing to press Iran “to abandon the covert and illegal program by which the mullahs plan to dominate the region.” But how do they know that the mullahs have a covert program, or that they wish to dominate the region? Aha! Good question, say the editors, because they have the answer that even Obama does not know about.

You see, Barack may only fancy “that he can police with certainty the internal machinations of the [Iranian] regime,” but they know for certain that he cannot. That's because they know for certain something he doesn't know. It is that the regime of the ayatollahs is “the world's most duplicitous regime.” Duplicitous, eh! Okay, you say, but how do they know that? Aha again! They exclaim for, this is another good question. And boy, oh boy, do they have an answer for it; a voluminous answer at that.

Before they get to it, however, you need to know something about two historical facts. The first is that in their effort to destroy the late Yasser Arafat, the Israelis created a secret Palestinian organization and trained its members to sabotage his efforts at unifying the various Palestinian factions. But after the training, and after receiving material support from the Jews, the members of that organization trashed the instructions they were given by which they were to harm their own kind, and turned instead against the Jews. Now calling themselves Hamas, these Palestinians made use of the Israeli training to fight the Jewish occupation of Palestine.

The second historical fact you need to know is that up until the Oslo talks, the Palestinian resistance movement, headed by Arafat, lived in exile – in one Arab country or another, at one time or another. Its leaders happened to live in Lebanon when the Israelis decided to invade that country and destroy the movement. The Israelis failed in their objective when the Palestinian leaders moved to Tunisia. But what the Israelis managed to accomplish was the destruction of Lebanon. As it happens all the time – because the government could not protect the population – the people of Lebanon organized themselves and formed militias that took up arms to defend themselves and their families. This is how a new force was born in Lebanon, calling itself Hezbollah.

Now, in case you wondered why the editors of the New York Daily News used the word 'duplicitous' to describe the Iranian regime, the above history may provide the answer. It is that Israel directly created Hamas, and was responsible for the creation of Hezbollah. When it could not control them, Iran took them under its wing. Because the word duplicitous means double-dealing, the editors saw the switch from Israel to Iran as being duplicitous. This is the only way that the language of the editors can be explained.

In any case, based on the realities which exist on the ground, the editors of the New York publication want the world to believe that they are sane, that the Israelis are sane and that the Jews of the world are all sane. They also want the world to believe that no one who is not their friend is sane. More importantly they want the world to believe that “Obama acts as though the [Iranians] are led by rational men,” when in fact, he is only dreaming, and is about to enter a nightmare.

And what would the nightmare be? It would be that the frozen assets of the Iranians are about to be released. This means that “Khamenei gets $140 billion in blood money and property,” say the editors to whom getting your money back means getting blood money. Go figure it yourself, my friend, and don't ask me to explain.

These characters go further and say that “all evidence indicates that a Strangelovian mania has caused Obama to lose touch with the safety of the world far beyond the Middle East.”

By that, they mean the Obama administration is composed of the insane that need to be guided by those who created Hamas, and were responsible for the creation of Hezbollah.

Which – to the rest of humanity – sounds not like Dr. Strangelove but more like one flew over the cuckoo's nest.

Now you know what it means to say that the inmates have taken over the asylum.

Don't cry fighting a no Holds barred Match

What would you think of a wrestler who gets into a free for all, no holds barred, mud wrestling match, and cries before the fight begins that his opponent will cheat and will gain all kinds of advantages over him who will play by the non-existent rules and obey everyone of them?

You would think this guy should go home and hold the soft and loving hands of his wife or girlfriend … maybe watch a love story on television as well, because there is no room for someone like him in the arena of the rough and tumble. And you would be thinking the right things. That's exactly what the world is thinking as it watches an America whose pundits and legislators incessantly cry that the Iranians will in the future cheat on a nuclear agreement that is yet to be finalized, signed and sealed.

And the pundits and legislators of America cry and accuse the Iranians of all sorts of things because they view them as doing the wrong thing when the latter respond to the provocations they themselves never stop generating. Talking about a double standard … it is left up to you to figure that out.

One of those pundits is Stephen Hayes who has decided to show the world how the provocations and the crying are done at the same time. To this end, he wrote: “The Iran Deal, Then and Now,” an article that was published on June 26, 2015 on the website of the Weekly Standard. His approach is to show what the maximalist position of America was before the start of the negotiations, and contrast it with what is believed the deal will look like when the negotiations will have terminated.

Reproduced in abbreviated form, the author of the article writes the following about Iran: “The impending deal is not a good one. It legitimizes a rogue state, shifts regional power to a state sponsor of terror, strengthens the mullahs' hold on power, and guides Iran to nuclear threshold status.” And yet Hayes, other pundits like him, and many American legislators from both parties, cry their eyes out when the Iranians respond to these insulting provocations and to other ones.

Look at this: “Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made a series of demands: An immediate end to UN and US sanctions; no inspection of military sites, no freeze on nuclear research, and no interviews with individuals associated with the nuclear program.” As to Iran's own legislators and ordinary people, they usually respond to America's provocations with chants of “death to America,” which is the Oriental equivalent of “go jump into the lake.” The reality is that both recommend the death penalty for the other, but only one specifies the method by which death is to happen.

But, believe it or not, this is what brings tears to the eyes of the American wrestler … that super giant wrestler who – not long ago – did not need to carry a stick or speak a word for people everywhere on the globe to know what he meant, and what he wanted to see done. What a difference there is between the spectacle of then, and the spectacle that's mounted on his behalf today!

Note also that the American pundits and legislators cry not only about the way that the Iranians respond; they cry about the way that their own Executive does some things, and fails to do other things. Here is an example of that: “The New York Times headline read 'Iran's Leader Seems to pull back on Nuclear Talks.' That's one explanation. The more likely one: He understands that Obama is desperate for this deal and will agree to just about anything to make it a reality.” In fact, most of the Stephen Hayes article deals with this theme.

You see, my friend, these characters consider the Ayatollah and his entourage to be bad players, and potentially cheaters too because they dare to understand what they are not supposed to understand. Worse, the Americans see the Ayatollah's habit of trying to understand what is forbidden as being but a microcosmic representation of the nation of Iran as a whole.

In their view, this is a nation that insists on doing research and development on nuclear technology – something it has no right to understand in the first place because they say so. And they recommend that if Iran tries to master the technology and make use of it if only for peaceful purposes, it must be bombed into the Stone Age by America and its allies.

And that's what makes the giant a dangerous creature. So has the world noted.

CNN succumbs to Jewish animal Savagery

Even if they walk on two legs and look like human beings, the fact that they have a brain installed upside down inside the skull renders them no better than animals ... dare I say, even savage animals. And if they become journalists, they're good enough to ply their trade at CNN, one of the flagships representing North American animal-like journalism.

If you doubt this, and you wish to see proof for yourself, you only need to read Nick Thompson's piece which came under the title: “Female genital mutilation: Why Egyptian girls fear the summer,” published on June 25, 2015 on the website of CNN. It's a long article but what alerts you to the fact that this guy has a brain installed upside-down, is a short passage that comes early in the article. Speaking of female genital mutilation (FGM,) the author explains that it is: “what's also known as female circumcision.”

No, this guy does not need to do the kind of Yoga during which the practitioners stand on their heads. That's because his brain stands upside-down already by a cruel quirk of nature. The fact is that female circumcision has been around for as long as male circumcision has been – since ancient times. It was always called female circumcision till twenty years ago or thereabout when a woman who did not like what was done to her, described it as female genital mutilation. Thus, the appellation “circumcision” came first, lasted thousands of years, and then came “mutilation” – not the other way around.

That woman did not care that men are also circumcised for the same reasons – whatever they may be – but this was enough for the likes of CNN to turn the appellation into an instrument by which to establish the Jewish notion of “balance” to the daily occurrences of the modern 24-hour news cycle. To be fair to CNN, we must recall that the New York Times' own Tom Friedman habitually seeks to establish that same screwy balance by creating enough noise around the events to distort their original message and render them inaudible.

What Nick Thomson and CNN are trying to balance this time is something having to do with the buzz that's surrounding Egyptian summer – more specifically, “Alexandrian Summer.” In fact, this is the title of a book that was written by an Egyptian that happened to be Jewish, who left his native country back in 1951 to go live in Israel. His name is Yitzhak Gormezano Goren who, like most Egyptian Jews, does not hide the fact that “their hearts will remain forever in Egypt.”

Summer in Egypt, especially in Alexandria, has no rival. This is true for the foreign tourists who come to the country, spend the day at the beach during the day, allow themselves a night on the town, and then go to bed in a hotel room or in a cabin by the beach. Even more enjoyable is a summer that is spent in Alexandria by those who speak the language and do more than spend time at the beach and in the night clubs. They mingle with the locals, feel their warm hospitality, and take with them memories whose glory can never be captured by a camera. This is what Goren took with him to Israel even though he was only ten years old when he left Egypt carrying with him the kind of memories he can never forget.

Now imagine the sinking feeling and the terror that must have swept the offices and corridors of CNN when it was revealed that the 1978 Goren book had finally been translated into English, and was available at Amazon. It must have been as horrifying as when Tom Friedman and his editors at the New York Times learn – as they do once in a while – that something is published about say, the advanced state of high-tech in Egypt.

This is when those characters scurry to send none other than Friedman himself, the very emissary of lies and distortions, to the Middle East so as to come up with stories that will fill the air with noise that can change the sound of music into the sound of Jewish propaganda as it emanates from the bowels of hell itself.

And sure enough, the CNN characters did likewise by going through old, debunked and discarded articles, extracted from them false ideas and nonsensical statistics that defy the mathematics they espouse, and built around them a narrative of discordant noises, to make it stand against the heartfelt narrative of a novelist who left his heart not in San Francisco but in Alexandria, Egypt.

And they hope that this will create the Jewish screwy balance that has been screwing the minds, hearts and souls of Americans for half a century. Will they ever stop?

Jewish Misery seeks America's Company

There is an old saying: “Misery seeks company,” which applies to what the Jews have tried to do throughout their history. That is, if you can ignore the reality that, at the same time, they also tried to stand apart from the human race, and setting themselves above it.

Thus, while braying that Israel and the Jews cannot be compared to anyone, or that their actions cannot be equated with those of anyone, you see them buttress the cause of their animal savagery in Gaza by getting their pundits in the English speaking world to propagate the false notion that this is just a part of the blockade of Gaza to which Egypt is participating by the fact that it protects its borders and defends them against smugglers and human traffickers.

Also, at the height of their war of ideas against Iran, the Jews came up with the false notion that the Arab Gulf states were on the side of Israel, and would join it in an aerial assault on the Iranian nuclear installations. Other than that, they tried to make “friends” with the nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America by telling them: “We are so much alike, there is a natural affinity that bonds us together.”

One of the nations that the Jews have tried to court was the Muslim non-Arab Turkey. After a “honeymoon” that lasted a few years, the Turks developed, not a reciprocal affinity for Israel, but a repulsive tendency towards it and towards everything Jewish. Something similar happened in Latin America where the people there seem to have developed a kind of Jewish repelling spray they use to keep at arms-length every Israeli emissary that tries to whisper in their ears.

You can see the Jews continue to play this game in Benny Avni's column: “UN charges Israel with war crimes – is the US next?” It was published on June 25, 2015 in the New York Post. Here, Avni continues to do to America what has worked for the Jews during the past half century. What worked was the narrative of: “We're alike because we are the chosen and you are the exceptional. A division of labor whereby we tell you what to do, and you reciprocate by doing what we tell you, makes us good friends. You pay with lives and treasure; we collect the security and the high life that you deny your own people. It is an ideal situation.”

Look how Avni starts his presentation: “Washington must stop the United Nations' attempt to criminalize Israel's war on [the Palestinians] not only because it's the right thing to do – but because America's military may well be next in its crosshairs.” He goes on: “The UN's Human Rights Council issued a report … written by a team led by New York Supreme Court judge Mary McGowan Davis. The reality of the report is that it is a road map for the International Criminal Court's [ICC] prosecutor to indict [Israeli] officials, now that the Palestinian Authority has joined the ICC.”

His fear is that because “the report's authors accuse 'decision makers [in] Israel' of war crimes, and not just Netanyahu [but also] midlevel officers … off to The Hague we go.” And that's because the New York Supreme Court judge Mary McGowan Davis has judged that “Israel's judicial system isn't adequate.” So you want to know what's wrong with the Palestinians wanting to have their day in an impartial court that is opened to the world. And Avni tells you a long story about Africans being indicted by that Court, and one of them managing to evade being sent to The Hague for prosecution.

How does that affect the Palestinian-Israeli situation? How, you ask? Hum ... Maybe it will help you find the answer to your question if you knew that Russia, China, India and America are not members of that world organization. Does it help? No, you say? Too bad.

All of that being implied in what Avni has written, he now shoots himself in the foot. Speaking of the accusations leveled against the Israelis, he says there are “military professionals [who] beg to differ.” One being General Martin Dempsey, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, the other being a group of European and American former military commanders.”

Great, says the world, let these people go to The Hague and testify on behalf of Israel. Oh no, says Avni who knows that on cross-examination, a whole different story can emerge. And so, he commands: “America shouldn't get anywhere near the ICC … the next president must weigh this option. Otherwise, he or she risks being indicted.” Here we go again; Jewish to the last word.

SCOTUS does not play gotcha

The pundits on both sides of the debate are up in arms (also in protective shields) because six justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) have affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, thus upholding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) which is also known as ObamaCare, whereas three other justices have dissented.

Even though both the Opinion of the Court and the Dissent suggest that the justices themselves have done nothing more than argue the facts and the Law (Constitution and Precedents,) the pundits have split along political lines. Those that favor the opinion of the Court are generally of the Democratic or progressive bent, while those that favor the Dissent are generally of the Republican or conservative bent.

On the surface, the give and take between the justices who form the Majority opinion and those who form the Dissent, boil down to having a preference for the spirit of the law – in this case the ACA – as against the letter of the law. In fact, this is how judges split most of the time at the Appeals level and the Supreme Court level. But something different has been added to the arguments that were formulated by the two sides in this case.

The trouble is that such addition is not made explicit in the argument of the Court or that of the Dissent. The addition is, however, suggested by the fact that both sides agree on something. Here is what the Court says: “Given that the text is ambiguous, we must turn to the broader structure of the Act to determine the meaning of Section 36B.’A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme...'”

And here is what the Dissent says: “I wholeheartedly agree with the Court that sound interpretation requires attention to the whole law, not homing in on isolated words or even isolated sections. Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for rewriting it.” Note the objection to using 'context' as excuse … and the inevitable question which follows from it: Excuse to doing what?

That question forces us to go back to what the political pundits are saying on both sides of the argument because, after all, a law that is affirmed or that is rejected affects the public in a way that pleases one side of the political spectrum while displeasing the other side. Thus, if the element of excuse is seen by the Dissent in what the Majority has done, it means that gamesmanship of the political kind has been introduced in what is supposed to be a purely juridical enterprise. What could be the game that is played here?

There is no hiding the fact that the Republican Party has wanted to repeal ObamaCare, and has tried at least four dozen times to do so, but failed. And there is no hiding the fact that the Democratic Party sees the Act as being a signature accomplishment of the Democratic philosophy of governance, and that it wants the Act to remain. This being the case, the pundits have taken one side or the other, each according to his or her philosophical bent.

And so, the question is posed: How do pundits – who are fundamentally journalists – attack and sink an idea they dislike? Well, there are many ways to doing so, one being the use of the 'gotcha' method. This is short for “I got you cornered, and you have no way out.” For this to happen, the journalists wait for someone (usually a politician) to trip, or they deliberately set him up to trip. When they succeed, they blurt out gotcha – which is like saying checkmate when playing chess. It happens in journalism when the politician inadvertently says the wrong thing at the wrong time, or says it for the wrong reason.

Now, whether or not the Dissent at SCOTUS had meant to play the game of journalists and pundits by stressing language over context, had its opinion prevailed, the effect of rejecting the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, would have unraveled the entire ObamaCare, and would have given its opponents the chance to cry out gotcha.

But SCOTUS is not in the business of playing the gotcha game … which is why upholding ObamaCare was the correct decision.

What Blood? What Libel? What Inquisition?

There was a time when the rabbis used to bray: “You can't compaaaare,” and later started instructing the public about the idea of: “You can't equate” though I don't remember hearing them bray: “You can't equaaaate.” The intended effect was the same, however: to set Israel and the Jews apart from the rest of humanity, thus establish that they are closer to God than to man. But then came the people who told Israel and the Jews they are closer to Satan than to man or God.

It is relevant to remember these episodes because the rabbis and the Jewish leaders who came after them never ceased to compare and to equate Israel with anything and everything that could help them make their point. Two editorials on the subject of the UN report discussing the Israeli military assault on Gaza demonstrate how far these people will go in doing the things they say would be anti-Semitic if others did them.

First, there are the editors of the New York Daily News who bellyache about the UN in a June 23, 2015 piece they titled: “The U.N.'s blood libel,” in which they revile the World organization for telling the truth about Israel. Yes, they use the expression blood libel, which they will most certainly trivialize by abusing it the way they abused and trivialized the Holocaust.

Second, there are the editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) who bellyache about the same UN in a June 25, 2015 piece they titled: “The U.N.'s Israel Inquisition” and subtitled: “Another skewed report that blames the Jewish state for war crimes,” in which they revile the World organization for telling the truth about Israel. Yes, they use the word Inquisition, which they will most certainly trivialize by abusing it the away they abused and trivialized guess what, yes, the Holocaust.

So the question to ask: how and where did the idea of blood libel originate? Well, the Jews call blood libel the Christian belief, started in early medieval times, that Jews kidnapped Christian children, murdered them and used their blood to make matzoh bread at Passover. Obviously this was a false story, but it had roots in two realities, one being a physical reality, and the other folkloric.

The folkloric root is none other than the biblical myth about the Jews being slaves in ancient Egypt, and their taking a savage revenge on the Egyptian families. They did so in the middle of the night by painting a cross made of blood on the door of every household that had a newborn baby. The angel of death then made his round and murdered the babies while the Jewish men were robbing the homes and temples of Egypt of their treasures, and the women were making the matzoh bread they all consumed before running into the desert.

As to the physical reality, it had to do with something that is commonly practiced in Europe to this day. It is the kidnapping of children having Northern European attributes by gypsies and bohemians who feel discriminated against because of their appearance. Raising these children as their own, and marrying them when they grow older, helped produce a new breed of people (now called the Roma) who are still discriminated against, but not as severely as before.

As to the Jews – unable to have a nose job, grow taller or hairier – they practiced activities similar to those of the modern Roma, at the height of the Roman Empire to shed their Semitic look, thus mingle more readily with the Roman elites. The ordinary people who observed the Jews kidnap children, merged what they saw with the Jewish folklore of biblical times, and came up with the story now called blood libel.

The Jews no longer kidnap children, except in occupied Palestine where they harvest their internal organs and sell them to the highest bidder. Otherwise, they replaced kidnapping with adoption, taking in blue-eyed blonde babies with whom they intermarry to create what they used to boast was the Kirk Douglas look. It is a new “race” of Jews that used to be called the Douglasoids. And having produced a fairly large crop of wealthy Douglasoids by now, this breed of fake Jews reproduces itself by seducing high-profile attractive girls (mostly Catholic) and popping the question: Will you marry me?

There are at least two things wrong with this new breed of people. They may look like Kirk Douglas but they feel like Dracula when it comes to shedding Palestinian blood, and they think like apes when it comes to matters of justice, the law and human logic.

This is why the use of the word Inquisition by the editors of the Wall Street Journal is revealing when seen through that prism. Here is an example: “Israel refused to cooperate with the inquiry, since there was little question what its conclusion would be.” This is typical of the way that the Jews operate both locally and internationally.

The last such loathsome infraction occurred when a Jewish law firm convinced the Canadian government to circumvent the judicial process and hand it more than ten million dollars on the grounds that “there was little question how the court will rule,” or something to this effect.

That shameful episode happened at a time when the consensus was that the Jewish firm did not have a case to begin with. It also happened at a time when the treasury was so strapped, it could not come up with a million dollars to compensate hundreds of old veterans who were used like guinea pigs in experiments that were conducted on them by a foreign power in collaboration with their own government. This was such a scandalous case, people asked me to report on it, and I did.

And the sickly charade of America, Canada and Israel calling themselves regimes based on the rule of law continues as shown by the last paragraph of the WSJ editorial. It goes like this: “The Obama Administration says it will oppose bringing the report to the U.N. Security Council,...” that's bad enough but it does not stop here because these people don't know where to stop. So they go on: “...but it lent legitimacy to the enterprise when it joined the Human Rights Council...”

Do you realize what this means in practice, my friend? It means that America considers it lawful, therefore “legitimate” to apply and enforce the international laws on all the nations of the planet. But when it comes to Israel, an “enterprise” that does not whitewash the Jewish activities must be considered unlawful, therefore illegitimate.

Why is that? Because Israel is above the law and cannot be compared or equated with someone else. But anything that is done to Israel – even when it deserves it – can be compared or equated with things like blood libel and the Inquisition. That’s the difference between ordinary humans, and the closer to God specimens.

America is not helping Israel or the Jews; it is handing them all the rope they ask for to hang themselves.

The fatal Flaw in Alan Kuperman's Reasoning

No matter how much education an individual has, if obsessed with something, his ability to think rationally will diminish or get killed by the obsession. This is the lesson you come out with when you read Alan J. Kuperman's article: “The Iran Deal's Fatal Flaw” published on June 23, 2015 in the New York Times.

He unveils his obsession near the end of the article with these words: “Showering Iran with rewards poses grave risks.” This is the conclusion he reaches by following a reasoning that is so flawed, you wonder what demonic force is working on him – and working on all those like him. The bone of contention on which he builds his thesis is the duration of the so-called break-out time that Iran will need to put together a nuclear bomb before … before … yeah, please tell before what. … Let's say, he means before something. Yes, it is something he does not tell. He does not because he knows not what to say that will scare people yet prove to be credible.

But because the break-out time is the very squabble over which the great debate has erupted, Kuperman was compelled to say something … and so he said the thing that says nothing. Here is how he formulated this part of his contribution to the debate: “By my calculations, Iran's actual breakout time would be three months – not over a year. Thus, the deal would be unlikely to improve the world's ability to react to a sudden effort by Iran to build a bomb.”

So that's what he calls grave risks. He wants the world to believe that the Iranians have it within them to wake up one morning, make “a dash for the bomb,” and the world will not have the time to react. But the question remains: React to what exactly? Is it, react to the Iranians waking up that morning? Making a dash for the bomb? Having a bomb they did not test that may not work? Having a bomb they did not test that may work? Suppose they do make the bomb, and the world reacts at this point. What would be the difference between the world reacting before this point or after it?

Kuperman is not answering that question because obsession has robbed him of the reasoning that would have taken him thus far. This is where his credibility – and that of others like him – crumbles. In fact, his presentation is nothing more than the expression of his obsession. It has nothing to do with the real world that Iran and six negotiating partners are grappling with.

While this is the real world in which we live, Kuperman and all those like him live in another world and another reality. It is a fantasy which he describes with these words: “In the real-world breakout, Iran would race, not crawl, to the bomb.” So there you have it. Not only does he know for sure that the Iranians will build the bomb, he knows what kind of bomb they will race to. It will not be a bomb that will “require 59 pounds of weapons-grade uranium,” it will be one that “us[es] just 29 pounds of weapons-grade uranium,” he says.

But suppose the thought had occurred to Kuperman and to those like him that Iran dashing to the bomb in a month or a year changes nothing because standing at the threshold of having it, or actually having it will make no difference from the standpoint of the world reacting to the event. If the Iranians mention the bomb to threaten someone or if they test it or use it on someone, the big powers will wipe them off the map before they had the time to build the arsenal that could deter the world from reacting.

If Kuperman and those like him thought of that and they are not saying it, the question becomes: Why are they raising all that fuss? What do they really want? And there can be only one answer to these questions. Because they failed to get America to destroy Iran the way it did Iraq, they want America to at least destroy the Iranian economy by maintaining the sanctions indefinitely.

This is perhaps why Kuperman writes: “Obama's argument – extending Iran's breakout time – turns out to be worthless,” and says right after that: “infusing Iran's economy with … $30 billion to $50 billion … would entrench the ruling mullahs, who could claim credit for Iran's economic resurgence.”

That's what these people want; because Obama will not bomb Iran, they call on the congress of fools to wreck the Iranian economy in the hope of sparking a revolution. They dream this will result in changing the regime and possibly turn the country into another Libya. If not an Iraq, they will settle for a Libya – at least for now.

These characters never change, and that's why they always end up you know where.

Time to break the old economic Taboos

Glenn Hubbard and Kevin Warsh wrote an article in which they discuss: “How the U.S. Can Return to 4% Growth,” which is the title of their piece. It also came under the subtitle: “Short-term policy gimmicks need to be set aside in favor of longer-term tax and regulatory reforms.” The article was published on June 22, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

You look through the document to see what new ideas the two gentlemen brought to the discussion and find none. Mercifully, however, they kept the politics at a minimum but analyzed the current state of the economy through the one-sided prism of market forces. Doing so, they found the economy to be under-performing, thus suggested remedies which are the familiar offshoots of market-based economic theories.

The fact is that these theories have been around for more than two centuries. They serve a world that is made of several nations inside of which exist hundreds of economic jurisdictions called provinces or republics or sovereign states. These, in turn, try one economic tool or another; and try one combination or another at various times. The result is that the jurisdictions experience success some of the time but not all of the time.

Why is that? Because different circumstances require different tools or a combination whose potency does not seem obvious before you try it. The jurisdiction that stumbles onto the tool or the combination that suits the current circumstances, achieves success. Unfortunately, however, no matter what the advanced economies choose to do, they no longer experience the high rate of growth they used to enjoy in the past. At best, they experience a two percent growth at a time when the emerging economies post a rate that can be three or four times as high.

There are several explanations for that phenomenon, but like everything economic, they explain some things some of the time but not all things all of the time. There is, however, one explanation which everyone seems to have overlooked. To understand it, we must recall the situation as it existed when the advanced economies of today were beginning to industrialize. We can then compare that situation with what we see today.

Even though such economies were “emerging” industrially at the time, they were at the cutting edge of progress because no one else was crowding them. Some jurisdictions relied on market forces, and managed to achieve a high rate of growth. Other jurisdictions chose to intervene physically in the economy – for whatever reason – and fell behind. Observing these performances generated the inspirations that helped formulate the economic theories which remain in effect to this day.

The trouble, however, is that something has changed between then and now. While the advanced economies remain at the cutting edge of progress – in the sense that they continue to grow by the organic method of invention and innovation – they are prodded from behind by emerging economies that do not need to reinvent the wheel, so to speak … though they do a modest amount of research and development.

More importantly, these economies grow because they mimic what was done by others in the past. They also benefit from the inventions and the innovations of their contemporaries. They help themselves where and when they can … whether or not they have prior permission. The thing, however, is that even when they abide by the rules of the marketplace at the financial and commercial levels, having replaced the organic growth with mimicry amounts to intervening physical in the economy. That's what differentiates between the present and the past.

Thus, in the competition between the two sides, the advanced economies find themselves at a disadvantage. The way to level the playing field is to counter the physical intervention of others with physical intervention of their own. What must not happen, however, is the inadvertent triggering of a trade war. To avoid it, a protocol must be negotiated by the nations of the world, allowing the jurisdictions to protect key industries up to a negotiated percentage of their local consumption in these industries

This will break the old taboo of relying solely on market forces to manage the economy. But it is something that must be considered and put into effect till all the nations of the world become industrialized and achieve a rough parity in their standards of living. When this happens, the protocol will be repealed and replaced by the forces of the marketplace where the Hubbard and Warsh remedies will work like a charm.

We don't know, therefore we must destroy

The Cartesian saying: “I think, therefore I Am.” has its Neocon counterpart: “We don't know, therefore we must destroy.” This was the theme that kept cropping up during the Neocon virtual monopoly of the debate on the subject matter even after it was proven that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. It all happened right after the invasion of Iraq by American troops and their allies in 2003.

Twelve years later, Charles Krauthammer tells the world what the idea was about in the first place. He reveals its heretofore hidden secrets in his latest column: “A new strategy for Iraq and Syria,” published on June 18, 2015 in the Washington Post. The idea is encapsulated in the first paragraph: “It's time to rethink Iraq and Syria … the Sykes-Picot map is defunct.” Why is that? Because the fait accompli has been accomplished: “in Mesopotamia, balkanization is the only way to go … it has already happened and will not be reversed.”

This is the Jewish way of doing things. It is how the Jews begged for a tiny enclave where they promised to live a quiet life, but then gobbled up all of Palestine … establishing a fait accompli they say cannot be reversed. It is also how they sought refuge in America to escape mistreatment in Europe, but then gobbled up all strategic positions in government, culture and finance … destroying the long established American order and replacing it with their concept of what ought to be.

And that's not the only component that's driving the Jewish way of doing things. Another component is that the Jews never place a limit on how far they will push something. Unless and until they are stopped by an outside force, they keep pushing their luck till they crash into what breaks them and breaks their allies – at times even destroys the entire surroundings. This is what Charles Krauthammer is advocating; saying so over several paragraphs which – when condensed – sound as follows:

“What to do? Redirect our efforts to friendly forces … beginning with the Kurds … This week, more Kurdish success. Syrian Kurds captured the strategic town of Tal Abyad … from which to operate against the Bashar al-Assad regime … More good news comes from another battle line. The free Syrian Army drove the Syrian government out … Iraq is now gone. Our objective right now is to ensure the fall of the Assad regime.”

But this will do to Syria what was done to Iraq. The aftermath of toppling the regime of the latter being the chaos we now see in the region, toppling another regime will only double the chaos – or worse. Why advocate this insanity? Well, Krauthammer had already answered that question in a column he wrote four weeks ago; one whose theme is the politics of Republican presidential nomination. It all started innocently but then got out of hand and mushroomed into something bigger.

In fact, it was not meant to be a gotcha question but a genuine inquiry that carried profound ramifications for the future of America's relation with the nations of the Middle East and possibly the world. It is that the question: “Would you have invaded Iraq in 2003 if you had known then what we know now?” was turned into a gotcha question by the fact that each of the frontrunners for the nomination to the presidency of America in the Republican Party tripped over it, thus demonstrating how disastrous was George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq and occupy it.

And so, to take the edge off the spectacle that resulted, Charles Krauthammer wrote “You want hypotheticals? Here's one,” a column that was published on May 21, 2015 in the Washington Post. His thesis stood on two legs. The first was to rehash what had been said previously by people like himself – which is that W. Bush did the right thing by occupying Iraq. As to the chaos we see in the region today, it is not due to the Bush occupation but to Obama ending it, says the columnist.

But because this view was shot down by arguments to the effect that America could no longer afford to occupy foreign lands for an indefinite period of time … let alone lands where a Vietnam style guerrilla war will most certainly be mounted against her, Krauthammer found it necessary to give his thesis a second leg on which to stand. To do so, he attacked the very premise of the question: “Would you have invaded Iraq in 2003 if you had known then what we know now?”

He says the question contradicts itself. How is that? Here is his answer: “Had we known there were no weapons of mass destruction, the very question would not have arisen … No WMD, no hypothetical to answer in the first place.” What? What's that? What time frame is he talking about? “Had we known” refers to 2003. “No hypothetical to answer” refers to 2015. Where is the contradiction here? A predicate does not even exist for the contradiction to arise. Hence, we must conclude that Krauthammer employed a trick by which to confuse the audience while sounding wise and knowledgeable. It's a cheap trick; a very Jewish cheap trick.

But what did the Neocons recommend that W. Bush do in their collective state of ignorance? They said to him: “We don't know, therefore you must destroy.” He took that to heart and ordered the military to shock, awe and destroy Iraq. The military did just that, and the rest is history ... a sordid history at that.

And now, Krauthammer and people like him are advocating that the same be done to Syria. Their wish is to repeat the same sordid history thus double the horror because to them, horror is like getting free manna from the sky. Accomplishing the feat brings pride and joy to those who call themselves Jews. And they all want to be proud and joyful.

The 'Family' that was never a Family

Suppose I told you that I overheard a discussion between two men that went this way:

MAN 1: I came into your house and raped your wife. Instead of offering me your children too, you protested that I used your toothpaste. What kind of friend are you, raising a fuss about a trivial matter like this?

MAN 2: I'm sorry this happened but I suffer from the double personality syndrome. My good side will discipline my bad side, and I promise you, something like this will never happen again.

Would you believe me? Of course you wouldn't … because a scene like this never happens anywhere on Planet Earth. But suppose I told you the first man was Jewish, and the second was American. What then? Well, you will probably think that maybe, there is some truth to that story. Why is that? Because you've read many articles such as the one that was written by Matthew Continetti under the title: “Former Israeli Ambassador's Memoir Condemns Obama's Foreign Policy,” published on June 20, 2015 in National Review Online.

What you see in that article is typical of how the Jewish elites behave in America, and how the American elites respond. It is also how the world outside America perceives the relationship governing this odd couple. Look what Continetti writes: “Oren [former Israeli Ambassador] says military-to-military relations are strong, but the diplomatic fissure has degraded Israel's security. America, he says, provided a 'Diplomatic Iron Dome' that shielded Israel from anti-Semites in Europe, at the U.N., and abroad whose goal is to delegitimize the Jewish State and undermine her economically. This rhetorical missile shield is slowly being retracted.” In other words, the two clowns admit that without Obama's America, Israel would be dead by now.

But that's a passage that came in the middle of the article, and was sandwiched between Jewish moral syphilis that was ejaculated throughout the first half of the article, and ejaculated again throughout the second half of the article. Here is what came in the first half: “Obama convinced Israelis he wasn't bluffing about using force against the Iranian[s]. Then he failed to enforce his red line against the Syrian[s] – and the Israelis [felt] they've been snookered.” To which Continetti adds: “it's clear that Israel has been on her own since Obama took office.” You couldn't get Eichmann's dog to tell a lie as obviously dumb as this.

Moreover, he calls Oren's thesis “overwhelming, authoritative and damning,” and explains why. He says it shows that: “for six and a half years, the president of the United States has treated the home of the Jewish people like a rogue nation standing in the way of peace.” But how can that be? Because, he says: “Obama and Hillary Clinton have often [ignored] Palestinian actions, corruption, incitement, campaigns of de-legitimization and terrorism are overlooked, excused, accommodated.” The fact, however, is that a condemnation comes out the Obama Administration for as little as a graffiti being painted on a Jewish building in occupied Palestine, whereas fanatic Jews regularly burn churches and mosques without such incidents even being mentioned in America's media.

Now look at the low life and beastly nature of both Oren and Continetti. They whine because: “During the Gaza war, the State Department was 'appalled' by the civilian casualties.” Do you remember what happened during that war, my friend? What happened was that 2,100 mostly civilian Palestinians were murdered by the Jews using American made weapons. It happened to a population of 1.6 million people which, applied to America's population, comes to 420,000 Americans murdered in 50 consecutive days of relentless bombing. That's the equivalent of 150 operations of 9/11 intensity. That's three 9/11 per day on each of America's 50 states.

And those two animals, Michael Oren and Matthew Continetti are whining because the State Department says it was appalled at that level of casualties. Well, let me ask you this, you monsters of the deep: If you keep showing this side of the Jewish character, who on this Planet will shed as much as a single tear the next time that someone works on implementing the Final Solution? I tell you, don't even count on one drop.

That was the Jewish moral syphilis ejaculated in the first half of the article. As to what comes in the second half, it begins with this: “The administration threatens not to veto anti-Israel U.N. initiatives, Europe is aligning with the BDS movement, and anti-Israel activism festers on U.S. campuses.” So you want to know if the two beasts are laying the blame – or some of it – on the Jews. Not on your life. Instead, they blame it all on Obama whose: “unending criticism of Israel provides an opening for radicals to go even further. The diplomatic rupture endangers Israel in another way,” writes Continetti quoting Oren.

And that's not all because Oren does more than whine. He was “outraged when he learned that the administration had been conducting secret negotiations with the mullahs” who are “worse than 50 North Koreas,” says Continetti quoting Oren quoting the Bibi of Israel. As if this were not enough, “Israel is hemmed in by the threat of a third intifada on the West bank, by global nongovernmental organizations, by a condescending, flippant, and a bullying U.S. president whose default emotional state is pique,” says Continetti. And all that is Obama's fault? The question now is not whether someone will shed a tear; it's whether there will be any who will not openly or secretly cheer what they see.

And all this is described as being: “A 'family' argument where the criticism runs in only one direction.” Well, let me say something to these two retarded things. There are nearly 1,500 articles posted on this website in which I analyze anywhere between one and four articles in each, all written by Israelis, Jewish Americans, Jews of other races, and their non-Jewish running dogs. They all barked and they puked anti-Barack and anti-Michelle Obama rivers of venom since before Barack was elected the first time in 2008. To say that the criticism runs in one direction against Israel in light of all this, is to make even the Jews cry out: Light up the oven.

It is a family, alright. It is an American family that the Jew has been raping for too long. Sooner or later, someone will feel they had it up to here, and decide that enough is enough. The time has come to tell it like it is … and let the chips fall where they may.

The Theory of decentralized Capitalism

Given the renewed interest in the way that the economy can be transformed and made to work better for everyone, I propose to discuss a theory that has been brewing in my head for some time. The purpose is not to give a toolbox full of tools that can be used to revamp the economy, but give a package of ideas that can help others enlarge the discussion by providing a field on which to sough new seeds, and from which to harvest the resulting new ideas.

I begin with two postulates that are self-evident. The first is that to be efficient, an economy must achieve an exact balance between its production side and its consumption side. The proof is that an economy which produces more than it consumes will eventually junk or give away the extra production. On the other hand, an economy which produces less than it is able to consume, is an economy that functions below capacity. As to the second postulate, it is that people experience a higher standard of living when both the production and the consumption of goods and services increase in their economy.

Thus, the idea of managing an economy efficiently rests on the notion that it must be sustained not at a static level, but maintained with a growth that is repeated year after year … and doing so without experiencing large cycles of booms and busts. If this can be achieved, the economy will deliver maximum employment, which means maximum production of goods and services. It will also deliver maximum payroll payouts, which means maximum consumption and a higher standard of living. How can this be done?

To understand this part, we need to know what sort of consumptions powers an economy. There are basically two sorts. The first is the consumption of goods and services (known as consumer items) that allow the general public to live the lifestyles that people choose to have. The second is the consumption of capital items (mostly machinery and the maintenance that goes with it) done by the businesses which produce the goods or the services that the general public consumes.

Now, the Industrial Revolution and then the advent of fiat money split society into two camps: the one that owns the means of production, and the one called general public which consumes the goods and services produced by the first camp. Industry and fiat money created a gulf between these two camps … a gap that kept widening with the passage of time. This resulted in some producers getting fabulously wealthy while the consumers got poorer by comparison. The effect has been the creation of a disconnect between the production side of the economy and its consumption side. With this phenomenon, came the inefficiency that poses a new challenge: How to narrow the gap between the two camps?

Aware that increased production happens when the public saves more of its take-home pay, we conclude that capital formation is what helps the economy grow. But fiat money can also contribute to this effect. That is, when the central bank eases the interest rates, or when it buys assets to inject cash into the economy, more “capital” is put at the disposal of those who have the prerequisite to borrow it. So we ask: What do these people do with all that money? And the answer is disappointing.

A phenomenon of our time tells a sad story. It is that the debt levels reached by governments, by institutions and by the general public are at an all time high … and still growing. This means that capital is not going into the activities which increase production; it goes into the debt instruments that allow the lenders to get wealthier at the expense of borrowers who may not even have a high paying job to help pay off the debt while sustaining a decent standard of living. The result is a wealthy small camp of individuals who get wealthier at the expense of a camp that works harder yet gets poorer by comparison. What can be done?

To answer that question, we do a thought experiment. It is said that Mitt Romney has 250 million dollars. He certainly does not need this much to live on because, like every one else, he cannot eat more than 3,000 calories a day, cannot wear more than one suit at a time, cannot live in more than one house at a time, and cannot ride more than one car at a time.

Also, he does not use the money to develop one new mine, plant one new acre of land or engineer the fuel cell of the future. So then, what does he do with the money? He does two things. First, he lends it out to earn interest on which to live. Second, he displays it to tell those who have less, he's more “successful” than they, and tell those who have more; he'll soon catch up with them. This waxes his ego, but how many people do such non-activities employ, and how much production do they add to the economy? The answer is very little.

Now imagine that Romney discovers “religion” and decides to give ten million dollars each to 25 new or established small entrepreneurs who would develop new mines, plant new acres of food, or engineer the products of the future. Just think about it, how many people would they employ, and how much growth would they contribute to the economy? Now compare that with what Romney is doing with the money.

The point is that centrally controlled capitalism – that which remains in the hands of a few – is no better than centrally planned (Communist) economies. They both result in stagnating the means of production. The remedy is to decentralize capitalism so as to give a large number of people the chance to make a contribution. This will happen because more heads are better than one.

Now think what could be achieved if Donald Trump discovered “religion” on his way to the White House.

Disorder is in the Eye of the Beholder

To say that history has ended is to say that the human soap opera has come to an end. But since the characters of a drama cannot vanish into thin air, to end history means to freeze-frame the action. The result is that you get a static snapshot of a point in time, and you never know what might have transpired next.

This is the concept that paralyzes the Jewish thinking; the one that has caused them horrendous misery for thousands of years. Yet, Benny Avni is again invoking that concept to tell how he understands the current episode of the human soap opera. He presents his analysis in an article titled: “How Obama gave us a new world disorder,” published on June 18, 2015 in the New York Post.

After a long analysis of what he believes is reality, the writer concludes the article with this opinion: “The next president's challenge, then, is to understand that Obama has ushered in the return of history.” And all of a sudden, the questions that you have been asking while reading the piece are answered. Now you know that you wondered, you were astonished and you puzzled because Avni was not describing an unfolding drama; he was describing a static snapshot … at best, a handful of snapshots.

What's wrong with this approach is that it differs markedly from what is required to understand history. Whereas authentic historians (whether trained academically or having a natural talent for it) view history in terms of the forces that move the populations of nations and their leaders to act this way or that way, the Jewish ideology compels its adherents, wherever they may be on the globe, to do something else.

In Judaism, each “interesting” moment is viewed as a sign that the promise they will be rewarded for being who they are and for their patience, is about to be fulfilled. When this does not happen, their leaders tell them to consider such moments as dots that must be connected to understand why the promise has not yet been fulfilled. And their conclusion always boils down to the finding that a non-Jew did them in yet again.

In their view, the villain that stood in the way of their getting their just reward this time is none other than the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama. Despite all that he did to help Israel secure its survival, he did not do the one thing that would have fully satisfied them. It was to maintain the ongoing wars, to start new ones, or at least remain on a permanent war footing.

Here is how Avni has formulated that thinking: “He [Obama] ignored 'old' conflicts; he's also failing at the 'new' wars of our time … the 'new' conflicts include: non-state militias, fanatics, terror groups, and nuclear proliferation.” So you want to know what snapshots he used as dots to make the connections that led him to that insane conclusion.

This is what you encounter as you read the article he wrote: (1) in the 2012 debate with Mitt Romney, Obama offered a now-famous line. (2) Obama's crack was intended to be made at Romney's expense, but the president turned out to be the punch line. (3) Hillary Clinton presented Russia's Lavrov with “reset” button – only it has the Russian word for 'overcharge,' not 'reset,' on it. (4) Obama learned the wrong lessons from the past. The right approach was laid out by Ronald Reagan: “We win, they lose.” (5) Obama's lack of historical perspective deprived him of any coherent strategic thinking. Putin realized that what makes sense for Russia is to revert to the policies of yore.

That is the list Avni discusses, having started with this: “Vladimir Putin reacted to a Pentagon plan to place 5,000 troops in [the former Soviet satellites] with a counter-threat: 'Our nuclear forces will be supplied with more than 40 new intercontinental ballistic missiles.'” Had he possessed a historical perspective based on history being an ongoing drama rather than a series of snapshots, he would have realized that the world is where it is today because NATO reneged on its promise not to recruit into its ranks the nations that the Soviet Union let go.

The truth is that Putin is responding to what W. Bush started when he broke the promise, then followed with the foolish promise that America will arm itself to remain militarily superior to all the others put together. He thus started the new arms race and the new Cold War. Obama understands this, and uses firmness where needed and flexibility where possible to diffuse the situation. The Jews should be thankful instead of being treasonous.

Neither Sykes nor Picot were of the Axis

Because history is like a giant puzzle made of thousands of parts which fit together to represent a narrative that tells the story of the human race, there is something we must never do when telling that story. We must never truncate a patch of the puzzle and talk about its parts as if they were the only constituents making up the entire narrative.

And yet, this is what some historians do when they step out of the classroom to engage in the art of spin-doctoring history in a way that would serve the ends of an ideological group they sympathize with, or one that pays them handsome bribes called honorariums. Of course, such historians can also have a point of view in which they believe deeply. In such cases, the historians would use the talent they have, and the knowledge they have acquired to make their point look perfect … even if it means they need to mutilate history by truncating it.

This is the feeling you are left with after you read the article that came under the title: “Aggressive Adversaries Are Redrawing the World map,” written by Victor Davis Hanson and published on June 18, 2015 in National Review Online. He is making the analogy between what is happening today and what happened three quarters of a century ago, to then conclude that the current “aggressive” nations must be deterred without delay, or dire consequences will result.

The problem is that he accuses the Islamic State, as well as Russia and China of remaking the global map in the same way that Germany, Italy and Japan (the Axis nations) remade the map of the world in their time, before starting the Second World War. But the fact is that cutting up nations into small parts, and creating new ones from those parts, is something that the two prominent colonial powers of the time did. It was Sykes of Britain and Picot of France who negotiated the Sykes-Picot Agreement three decades earlier, and put it into effect.

With that, the two European “democracies” remade the Middle East and North Africa in a way that suited both their interests ... so much so that they eliminated the need to be hostile to each other. This done, they were left with enough energy, and with the necessary forces to oppose the other rising powers of Europe. These were mainly Germany and Italy that insisted on having their share of the natural resources which Britain and France were plundering from the colonies.

Instead of talking about the giant puzzle that comprises all those elements, Victor Hanson truncated the narrative and started with the events that led to the Second World War. Doing so, he mutilated history and failed to make an accurate analogy between the past and what is happening today. He also failed to make a more convincing guess as to what might happen next.

In his view “the contemporary world is starting to resemble the 1930s.” He goes on to say what the Islamic State plans to do, what Russian president Vladimir Putin thinks he can do, and what the Chinese will be able to do. Hanson then asks: “Is this 1939 or 2015?” To answer that question, he says that “the Western European democracies were terrified and mired in economic crises.” As to the United States, it was struggling with the Great depression and squabbling about other internal matters.

Likewise, what is happening now is that: “President Obama assumes Americans are tired of the Middle East and want to be left alone,” says Victor Hanson. He then advances the following cautious note: “In 1945 the Western democracies blamed themselves for having appeased fascist empires.” And from this, he draws two lessons: “Small sacrifices now can avoid catastrophic ones later on, and dictatorial regimes on a roll never voluntarily quit playing geostrategic poker.”

He then speculates that the Middle East will be bookended by the Islamic State on one side and the new Persian Empire on the other. China will control most of the Pacific and will adjudicate trade. As to the client states of the new Russian empire, they will border central Europe and be under pressure to leave EU, NATO, or both.

He sees in this futuristic scenario two possible endings. However, neither of the two can be considered informative because the Hanson description of what the Islamic State can do, confirms it has snatched the “exceptional” title from America, given that people are flocking to it from every corner of the globe – including the U.S. – to fight and die for its ideals.

As to Vladimir Putin of Russia, he'll do what Hanson speculates he'll be able to do because he is loved by his people who don't view him as a dictator.

And China will shine economically because it was able to adapt the fundamentals of true capitalist, rendering them compatible with the realities of the modern world in terms of the advancements that have been achieved in science, technology and human development.

That's what America used to be. That's what America ceased to be. That's what the others are becoming.

Only one thing can be said now: The sole superpower is defunct; long live the emerging superpowers.

The delusional Fantasy of the WSJ Neocons

If the Neocons have a command and control structure that is still standing, those in charge of it should get busy issuing communiqués to their foot soldiers telling them to cease all hostilities because the war of conquest has ended with their defeat. Continuing to beat a dead horse isn't going to yield any benefit especially that they are the dead horse, and they were beaten over and over again.

The reason why such communiqué must be issued becomes obvious to those who would read the editorial that was written under the title: “Obama's Snap-Back Fantasy” and the subtitle: “Big Business lines up to get into Iran after sanctions go away.” It was published on June 17, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). This work is a public lamentation that the war did not go their way … but nowhere do they hint that they will give up fighting the lost war, or at least consider a moratorium so that they and those they are affecting, may take a breather.

The problem with these people is that as long as they see a flicker of light at the far side of the endless tunnel, they will continue to believe they can score the victory they deserve, and win the war that was promised to them at the beginning of time. And the reason why they see a flicker of light is that they believe the sanctions have a chance of being snapped back on Iran if that country cheats on the nuclear agreement.

As to their optimism, it emanates from the belief that “the business community is betting otherwise.” These are the words of the Neocons, and they show how these people have been reasoning things out. It is that they were holding on to the thought that the outcome of the war had not been decided one way or the other as evidenced by the fact there was a bet, and the bet was still on.

And so, instead of throwing in the towel and sit quietly, they write an editorial in which they break with their own tradition, and describe the events surrounding the subject matter as accurately as they can. The catch, however, is that they spin those events in such a way as to make it sound it is Mr. Obama that must be criticized for the way that things have developed. As to their role in the affair, they cannot be faulted for the upside-down manner in which they have described the events throughout the years.

As a matter of fact, their faulty description of the events was not something they plucked out of thin air. It was something real they were seeing in their collective imagination. It was so real; in fact, it could not be called fantasy. It was more like delusion … a form of mass hallucination to the effect that Israel and the Jews were considered to be saints, and were loved by everyone on the planet.

At the same time as that, they were imagining that the Iranians were treated as demons, and were hated by everyone on the planet. This is why the Neocons – including those who write columns and editorials at the Wall Street Journal – believed that victory was at hand, and so they were counting on it.

But then everything came crashing in the view of the Neocons when it dawned on them that the world is knocking at the door of the Iranian homestead to do business with the enemy they had chosen for the day. To add to their pain, this is happening at the same time that the world is boycotting Israel, the assumed home of the Jews ... and tightening the screws on it.

This was the shock that jogged the Neocons into the reality that what they were seeing was nothing but delusion. The reality was out there, and so they decided to go look for it and describe it … not upside down as per the old habit, but describe it right side up, contrary to the old habit. To make certain they will not relapse into the old delusional mode, they listed the companies that are lining up to do business with Iran as soon as the sanctions are lifted. The following is their list:

Chevron, Siemens, Australia's Woodside energy, Singapore's Yug-Neftegaz, Shell, Italy’s Eni, Austria's OMV, Airbus, Peugeot, Sitroen, Societe General, BNP Paribas, global law firm Dentons Europe, management-consultancy FTI, PR firm WPP, Sotheby's and South African telecom MTN.

And that's not chopped liver – to quote a Native saying. But what it has done is to show that the Neocons are no better than potted plants on the world stage – to paraphrase an American saying.