If you are a Zionist fanatic and you see that the Zionist project is coming apart in Israel, you will most certainly try to do something about it. If the only tool you have in your bag of tricks -- that you know how to use and know will protect the Zionist project -- is to saturate the airwaves and the print media with what has come to be known as the Yiddish moral syphilism, you will saturate the airwaves and the print media with Yiddish moral syphilism. This is now happening, and the Wall Street Journal is taking the lead.
The way things stand at this point in time is that Israel has been unmasked as being a non-economy that was put together by a bunch of kibbutz dwelling Marxist-Leninists turned Zionists who continue to steal land and water from their neighbors, the unarmed people of Palestine. To drag America into their fantasy and to have it finance them as well as protect them, the Zionists have called on Jews everywhere in the world to go to Israel and do something demonic to help placate America. Upon their arrival, the newcomers are given two rights: the right to steal land and water from Palestinian families, and the right to say whether or not they like it. This second right is called the right to vote which is so important to the Americans, it will calm the folks over there and encourage them to continue supporting the Zionist project in Israel. No wonder even Lucifer feels he is always outwitted by these people.
This set-up worked as long as America remained the unchallenged industrial and military superpower that it was. But several occurrences happened in succession that were instrumental in eroding America's power, most of which were traced directly and indirectly to the work of the Jewish lobby in America and to America's blind support for Israel. The result has been that the superpower could no longer support Israel at the level that it did previously; and this began to happen at a time when the false image of the saintly Jew was fading in the country. Life became harder in Israel, and the fanatics among them started to savagely attack not only the Muslims there but also the Christians.
To counter the image of the fanatic Jewish gangs attacking Christian families in Israel, the Jewish lobby was called upon to start two parallel campaigns in North America. One campaign that will speak of the plight of Christians in Muslim countries, and one that will speak of the danger of Muslims living in America. Add to this a third campaign that will speak of the danger of Iran -- a Muslim country -- to make progress in the nuclear field. And guess what happened on March 9, 2012; the wall Street Journal published three pieces, one on each of these subjects.
Michael Oren who is Israel's ambassador to America wrote: “Israel and the Plight of Mideast Christians” and the subtitle: “Just as Jews were once expelled from Arab lands, Christians are now being forced from countries they have long inhabited.” Richard Clarke, Judith Miller and R.P. Eddy wrote: “New York's Finest Are Getting Smeared” and the subtitle: “The Police department's counterterrorism work protects lives and civil liberties.” Robert P. Casey, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman wrote: “Iran can't Be Allowed Nuclear 'Capability'” and the subtitle: “When some say that our red line is a 'nuclear weapon,' it suggests that anything short of a working bomb is acceptable. This is exactly the wrong message to send.”
To me, the Wall Street Journal is the gift that keeps on giving, and here it is giving me the opportunity to tell why I started this website at the time that I did. I had wanted to start it at least ten years ago but I could not because I had a heart condition, my eyesight was failing and my financial situation was precarious. But then I had a heart operation and my financial situation started to improve. As to my eyesight, I was told I was not yet ready for a cataract operation but that the time was approaching. Thus, I decided to wait another year or two before starting a website but then something happened that hastened me to start it sooner.
While the whole world has this image of the Mosad as being the vaunted spy agency of Israel, I never thought of it as being more vaunted than a bird's dropping. And this is because I knew who and what the real spy agency of Israel was. It was and still is every Jew who goes to a synagogue, a Jewish agency, an Israeli consulate or embassy to report on what they see at school, in the homes of friends and foes they visit, in the workplace, in public places, in the government and so on, and so on, and so on. This information goes to many places where it is acted upon; and some of it may well go to the Mosad but this was irrelevant to me. What was relevant was the fact that someone wanted to know everything that happens here in Canada the same way they want to know what happens everywhere else in the world, especially in Palestine. In fact, they treat us all as if we were Palestinians living under occupation the way that they do in the West Bank of the Jordan.
What I saw them do in Canada is find someone who knows someone who will approach someone they have in their cross-hairs and gather information on them to recruit them, frame them or set them up for a fall and so forth. Two things were of maximum importance to these people. One was the financial situation of ordinary Canadians of Arab descent, whether they are wealthy or not. The other was the state of individual Christian Arabs, especially the Coptic Egyptians whom they tried to recruit and train so as to launch a sectarian civil war in Egypt the way that they have managed to do in Lebanon and the way that they are trying to do in Iran at this very moment.
Then something happened. They felt I was coming close to cracking open a case whereby they had recruited an Egyptian young man in Turkey and brought him to Canada where they gave him a job at a bank. His instruction was to gather information on bank accounts that belong to Canadians of Arab descent. He was a Muslim but they had him convert to Christianity, had compromised him by taking pictures of him engaging in a homosexual act, and they were blackmailing him. When they detected that I was on the trail of something, they panicked and got someone to go on television, pretend to be a Christian and cry out for help. I immediately wrote to the hosts of the show that carried this piece of Jewish filth and told them they were being used to do something so filthy they should drop it right away.
Afraid that I may eventually discover the identity of the young Egyptian they had recruited in Turkey, they approached the Egyptian security service in Egypt and told them about him. At the same time, they paid the guy to go and do a job for them in Egypt whereby he was arrested upon landing at the airport.
This is why I started this website when I did. Since then, I had an operation in one eye and will have another one in the other eye.
With this information in mind, I ask you to now go and read those three articles. You will understand how pure evil works, and why the security apparatus of America should concentrate on every single Jew that lives in that country.
And leave the Arabs alone because you will find them to be the most loyal people in the world when you treat them well.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Histrionics At Its Worst
There is something called histrionics which is the presentation of a happening in the form of a series of events that have followed each other in a chronological order at some point in the past. If you do this while also highlighting the relationships and the motivations that have existed between the players, you now have what is called history. You can tell the story of Planet Earth from its beginning four and a half billion years ago to about a few million years ago as a series of events, and you would have a histrionics that is complete and acceptable. But the higher primates began to appear on Earth a few million years ago and something changed, giving rise to history, a new way of stitching together a story.
It is that those higher primates have developed relationships and motivations for acting the way that they did, and their story could not be told without highlighting these facts. From that point on, theirs was no longer a series of events that can be presented as histrionics, but a full fledged history that must be narrated in the form of drama. And the human race being the highest of the primates, it would be a crime to omit the reasons why history develops the way that it does, and simply tell our story in the form of histrionics.
Here is a passage that shows histrionics at its worst even if it tries to redeem itself toward the end: “The U.S. changed alliances many times during the Cold War. Egypt started out as a pro-Western country, shifted to radical socialist nationalism, and came back to the West in the late 1970s. Iraq and Iran turned from staunch allies of the U.S. to bitter opponents. The Gulf states and the Saudis had little love for the U.S., but their interests lay so close to ours that most of the time alliances prospered even if friendship soured.” It is a passage that came in an article written by Walter Russell Mead and published in the Wall Street Journal on March 7, 2012 under the title: “America Is Stuck With the Mideast” and the subtitle: “Global oil markets and global commerce mean that American presidents will simply not be able to set this region off to the side.”
Despite the fact that Walter Mead is a college professor, he did not see fit to give even a hint as to why the relationships between America on one hand, and each of Egypt, Iraq and Iran on the other have evolved the way that they did. He made an attempt with regard to the Gulf states and the Saudis but it was a feeble attempt because it only said that those countries never loved America, the friendship between them was sour but they all had a common interest so they became allies to prosper together.
It is not surprising, therefore, to see that the professor has followed that piece of histrionics with a passage that describes the current state of affairs without yielding any useful insight as to why things are the way they are. Here is this passage: “Today, the grounds of alliance are once again shifting, and in unpredictable ways. Turkey and the U.S. are closer than they were three years ago. Egypt and the U.S. are further apart. The Saudis if anything are impatient with U.S. moderation on Iran; here they and the Israelis are reciting from the same book of prayers.”
Having characterized the motivation of the Gulf States and the Saudis as being one of self interest, he now says that the Saudis have the same wish as those of the Israelis; that of seeing a tougher American stand toward Iran. And what this says about him is that his understanding of the people of the region is close to nil. Thus, what he does is simply reflect the Israeli and Jewish-American point of view. In fact, it may well be that they wrote the article for him, and he just signed it. Knowing this helps us to understand why the article is written the way it is, thus upgrade what we draw from it despite the wish of the author who may or may not have wanted to hide elements of the history behind the histrionics.
And so I ask: “What is it that he or they want?” Well, we find this at the beginning of the article: “The Middle East is on fire … even as President Obama assures us that he has Israel's back and 'will not countenance' Iran getting a nuclear weapon … [he] speaks about 'leading from behind' and of a 'pivot toward Asia.'” As you can see, he laments in the name of “us” that the President has chosen to lead from behind and to pivot towards Asia, acts he will later explain are taking place at the expense of attention being diverted away from the Middle East and from the protection of Israel.
And lest people accept this as being due to the decline in American power, he assures us that America “remains the paramount power in the region and will remain committed to it for a long time to come.” If this sounds more like a wish than a deep understanding of what is happening, wait till you see how far his wish extends. Here is a piece of that: “The U.S. wants a balance of power … that prevents any power or a coalition of powers inside or outside the region to block the flow of oil … It wants Israel to be secure. And … it hopes to see the establishment of … democratic governments.” Of course, it is now understood that “democratic government” has become a euphemism to mean a puppet of the Jewish lobby the way that things are in America.
The wish becomes a full blown fantasy when he goes on to say this: “If it must, the U.S. will act directly and on its own to achieve these goals.” This is a Yiddish style rebuke and a challenge to a President that prefers to divert his attention to Asia and to lead from behind. And when the Yiddish fantasize, they fabricate the reality that suits the moment. Here is how Mead expresses it on their behalf: “In today's Middle East, core U.S. goals enjoy wide … support … a strong coalition has formed around Washington's … priority -- the Iranian drive for regional hegemony capped by its nuclear program … U.S. objectives command enormous support across the region … If this is decline, we could use more of it.”
And what would not be Judeo-Yiddish that exploits a current event even if the event is no more relevant than say, to spot someone wearing brown shoes on a Wednesday? Walter Mead has a contribution to make in this regard; more like something handed to him by his Jewish mentors: “In recent weeks, rising Middle East tensions have helped drive up the price of gasoline in the U.S. More price increases will anger voters, scare consumers, and could well knock the nascent U.S. economic recovery on its head … For President Obama, those developments would pretty much doom his re-election efforts. The same will be true of his successors.” It always comes down to this: Kiss Jewish ass or get booted out your position of power.
Moreover, these people never tire looking for and finding a mouthpiece that will bark the right sound at the leader they wish to nudge in the direction of their cause. Having spent decades telling the Americans to get off their addiction to oil if they can, or get off dependence on Middle Eastern oil if they can't, they now get Mead to say the following on their behalf: “...the global nature of the world oil market, and the effect of supply insecurity … means that American presidents will simply not be able to set this region off the side. It is easier to pivot toward Asia than to pivot away from the Middle East. The reality is that the U.S. will have to walk and chew gum at the same time.” As you can see, when these people realize that their wish is about to come true and not deliver what they dreamed about, they change their wish and escalate the dream.
What else is left to do but to say to America's future leaders: Hang on in there and things will get rosy and sweet again. If you want to know how this looks like, my friend, look through the colored glasses they have created, and marvel at the vision they painted to entice a President: “Should political conditions change in Iran, the kaleidoscope could change again … the U.S. and Iran were close allies; new leadership in Tehran might seek to rebuild the relationship. The Sunni world will likely divide if the Iranian threat diminishes … some Sunni states will want [the] U.S. to protect them...” As you can see, they get Walter Mead to promise America a marriage with Shiite Iran, and they promise the possible break up of the bond that keeps together the Sunni Arabs.
He ends the piece by admitting that many in the Middle East want America to bow out, and there are many in America who would like to leave but he tells them all: “For now, both groups must learn to accept disappointment.”
Why should they? you ask. Have you not figured it out, my friend? Because it suits Israel and the Jews, stupid. They are the only ones that count because theirs is a history that comes complete with human relationships and motivations while everyone else has but a histrionics that amounts to very little.
So says Professor Walter Russell Mead.
It is that those higher primates have developed relationships and motivations for acting the way that they did, and their story could not be told without highlighting these facts. From that point on, theirs was no longer a series of events that can be presented as histrionics, but a full fledged history that must be narrated in the form of drama. And the human race being the highest of the primates, it would be a crime to omit the reasons why history develops the way that it does, and simply tell our story in the form of histrionics.
Here is a passage that shows histrionics at its worst even if it tries to redeem itself toward the end: “The U.S. changed alliances many times during the Cold War. Egypt started out as a pro-Western country, shifted to radical socialist nationalism, and came back to the West in the late 1970s. Iraq and Iran turned from staunch allies of the U.S. to bitter opponents. The Gulf states and the Saudis had little love for the U.S., but their interests lay so close to ours that most of the time alliances prospered even if friendship soured.” It is a passage that came in an article written by Walter Russell Mead and published in the Wall Street Journal on March 7, 2012 under the title: “America Is Stuck With the Mideast” and the subtitle: “Global oil markets and global commerce mean that American presidents will simply not be able to set this region off to the side.”
Despite the fact that Walter Mead is a college professor, he did not see fit to give even a hint as to why the relationships between America on one hand, and each of Egypt, Iraq and Iran on the other have evolved the way that they did. He made an attempt with regard to the Gulf states and the Saudis but it was a feeble attempt because it only said that those countries never loved America, the friendship between them was sour but they all had a common interest so they became allies to prosper together.
It is not surprising, therefore, to see that the professor has followed that piece of histrionics with a passage that describes the current state of affairs without yielding any useful insight as to why things are the way they are. Here is this passage: “Today, the grounds of alliance are once again shifting, and in unpredictable ways. Turkey and the U.S. are closer than they were three years ago. Egypt and the U.S. are further apart. The Saudis if anything are impatient with U.S. moderation on Iran; here they and the Israelis are reciting from the same book of prayers.”
Having characterized the motivation of the Gulf States and the Saudis as being one of self interest, he now says that the Saudis have the same wish as those of the Israelis; that of seeing a tougher American stand toward Iran. And what this says about him is that his understanding of the people of the region is close to nil. Thus, what he does is simply reflect the Israeli and Jewish-American point of view. In fact, it may well be that they wrote the article for him, and he just signed it. Knowing this helps us to understand why the article is written the way it is, thus upgrade what we draw from it despite the wish of the author who may or may not have wanted to hide elements of the history behind the histrionics.
And so I ask: “What is it that he or they want?” Well, we find this at the beginning of the article: “The Middle East is on fire … even as President Obama assures us that he has Israel's back and 'will not countenance' Iran getting a nuclear weapon … [he] speaks about 'leading from behind' and of a 'pivot toward Asia.'” As you can see, he laments in the name of “us” that the President has chosen to lead from behind and to pivot towards Asia, acts he will later explain are taking place at the expense of attention being diverted away from the Middle East and from the protection of Israel.
And lest people accept this as being due to the decline in American power, he assures us that America “remains the paramount power in the region and will remain committed to it for a long time to come.” If this sounds more like a wish than a deep understanding of what is happening, wait till you see how far his wish extends. Here is a piece of that: “The U.S. wants a balance of power … that prevents any power or a coalition of powers inside or outside the region to block the flow of oil … It wants Israel to be secure. And … it hopes to see the establishment of … democratic governments.” Of course, it is now understood that “democratic government” has become a euphemism to mean a puppet of the Jewish lobby the way that things are in America.
The wish becomes a full blown fantasy when he goes on to say this: “If it must, the U.S. will act directly and on its own to achieve these goals.” This is a Yiddish style rebuke and a challenge to a President that prefers to divert his attention to Asia and to lead from behind. And when the Yiddish fantasize, they fabricate the reality that suits the moment. Here is how Mead expresses it on their behalf: “In today's Middle East, core U.S. goals enjoy wide … support … a strong coalition has formed around Washington's … priority -- the Iranian drive for regional hegemony capped by its nuclear program … U.S. objectives command enormous support across the region … If this is decline, we could use more of it.”
And what would not be Judeo-Yiddish that exploits a current event even if the event is no more relevant than say, to spot someone wearing brown shoes on a Wednesday? Walter Mead has a contribution to make in this regard; more like something handed to him by his Jewish mentors: “In recent weeks, rising Middle East tensions have helped drive up the price of gasoline in the U.S. More price increases will anger voters, scare consumers, and could well knock the nascent U.S. economic recovery on its head … For President Obama, those developments would pretty much doom his re-election efforts. The same will be true of his successors.” It always comes down to this: Kiss Jewish ass or get booted out your position of power.
Moreover, these people never tire looking for and finding a mouthpiece that will bark the right sound at the leader they wish to nudge in the direction of their cause. Having spent decades telling the Americans to get off their addiction to oil if they can, or get off dependence on Middle Eastern oil if they can't, they now get Mead to say the following on their behalf: “...the global nature of the world oil market, and the effect of supply insecurity … means that American presidents will simply not be able to set this region off the side. It is easier to pivot toward Asia than to pivot away from the Middle East. The reality is that the U.S. will have to walk and chew gum at the same time.” As you can see, when these people realize that their wish is about to come true and not deliver what they dreamed about, they change their wish and escalate the dream.
What else is left to do but to say to America's future leaders: Hang on in there and things will get rosy and sweet again. If you want to know how this looks like, my friend, look through the colored glasses they have created, and marvel at the vision they painted to entice a President: “Should political conditions change in Iran, the kaleidoscope could change again … the U.S. and Iran were close allies; new leadership in Tehran might seek to rebuild the relationship. The Sunni world will likely divide if the Iranian threat diminishes … some Sunni states will want [the] U.S. to protect them...” As you can see, they get Walter Mead to promise America a marriage with Shiite Iran, and they promise the possible break up of the bond that keeps together the Sunni Arabs.
He ends the piece by admitting that many in the Middle East want America to bow out, and there are many in America who would like to leave but he tells them all: “For now, both groups must learn to accept disappointment.”
Why should they? you ask. Have you not figured it out, my friend? Because it suits Israel and the Jews, stupid. They are the only ones that count because theirs is a history that comes complete with human relationships and motivations while everyone else has but a histrionics that amounts to very little.
So says Professor Walter Russell Mead.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Romney Says Will Sting Iran And America
Romney won big last night and the time has come to examine him closely. No, you got it all wrong, dear reader. It is not that Mitt Romney promises to sting Iran like a gadfly would sting or that he promises to sting that country as a bumble bee would sting. It is that he says he will do what Ronald Reagan did. The trouble is that there is the historical fact as to what Reagan did, and there is the Romney understanding as to what Reagan did.
The historical fact is that Reagan worked with Israel to supply Iran with shoulder-fired anti-aircraft Stinger missiles in return for freeing the American hostages. Given the circumstances at the time, this may well have been the best course to take. History has not yet passed a final judgment on this. As to what the Romney understanding of that historical fact may be however -- well, that's something else.
Romney expressed his views on this subject in an article he wrote under the title: “How I would check Iran's nuclear ambition” published in the Washington Post on March 5, 2012. Since he has never been President of the United States and since he has never dealt with Iran before, we can begin to formulate an idea as to how he will proceed to fulfill his promise only by analyzing his words and by studying his performance in another field of endeavor. This would be his understanding as to how an economy works. I'll come to that in a moment.
Before we embark on that study, let us look at the promise he made to deal with Iran as he explained it himself in the article. He writes that while US diplomats were held hostage “America's feckless president, Jimmy Carter, fretted in the White House.” The truth is that President Carter ordered the military to mount a rescue operation. An attempt was made but the operation ran into difficulties and was aborted. To say that the American President was feckless and that he fretted in the White House is to be fickle like only a flip-flopping Romney can be. And this alone casts doubt as to whether or not he is fit to occupy that White House. But there is more.
Romney goes on to say: “...Reagan made it crystal clear that the Iranians would pay a very stiff price.” But the fact is that they never complained about receiving the Stinger missiles or about letting the hostages go. So where is the stiff price, Mitty boy? The truth is that in return for bribing the Iranians with Stinger missiles, the Reagan negotiators had asked for a reciprocal gift which they fretted when it came to calling it a bribe. They asked that the hostages be let go on January 20. It's okay with us, said the Iran negotiators but out of curiosity, why January 20? Ron's birthday? asked the Iranians. No, inauguration day, said the Americans. Oh, that little thing you call democracy, remarked the Iranians. Yes, yes. And they all exploded in laughter. The American negotiators drank whiskey and the Iranians drank orange juice. I made up this last part.
Having understood history in his little screwy manner and in the big swaggering manner that his Jewish advisers have explained it to him, Romney continues like this: “...Reagan was serious about turning words into action.” Indeed he did; he chose life over death by thinking of the hostages and their families, and by doing the best that he could for them rather than display his phony manhood the way that they do in the Yiddish culture. In the end, Reagan got the Americans home from a foreign land and into the arms of their loved ones. In the end, Romney will send American boys and girls to die in foreign lands so as to please the Jewish donors of his electoral campaign.
Having engaged in this display of intellectual pornography, Romney advises the reader of this: “America and the world face a strikingly similar situation today; only even more is at stake.” You think for a moment that he is going to admit America is held hostage by the Jewish lobby at every electoral cycle, and that he will do what he can to break from this demonic tradition thus end it once and for all. But this is not what he promises. Instead, he says that feckless Barack Obama “has declared such an outcome unacceptable, but his rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy. While Obama frets … the Iranians are making progress...”
To elaborate on this, he takes a few paragraphs to froth at the mouth the filth that is usually leveled against Iran, the Middle Eastern types and Islam. He then promises that as President, he would move America in a direction where its “...foreign policy will be the same as Ronald Reagan's.” At this point you wonder if he will offer to give the Iranians more Stinger missiles but then, you come to think that the Israelis will probably not cooperate this time around, and that the Iranians might not want such a deal given that they now make their own missiles. Luckily and to your relief, that's not what Romney promises. What he does is promise to say and do exactly what President Obama is now doing with one exception: “I will demonstrate our commitment to the world by making Jerusalem the destination of my first foreign trip.”
This puzzles you because it is recognized both in international law and in American law that Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. Does he intend to visit Palestine to demonstrate commitment to Israel? Or is he advocating a one state solution? Or is he advocating the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank of the Jordan to facilitate the annexation of that territory by Israel? It looks like Romney has flipped on this question. It will be interesting to see if he will flop as well.
This being a good question, he does not leave you without an answer. But he waits till the end to give it to you. Here is the last sentence in his article: “Either the ayatollahs will get the message, or they will learn some very painful lessons about the meaning of American resolve.” This is the manner he employs to pretend that his resolve is American resolve which, as we may expect, is to flop every time he flips. No, Romney is not a gadfly or a bumble bee, but he is a bumbler, alright. What he will do is not supply Iran with Stinger missiles but sting America and its people with the sharp tongue of the language of insults that is inculcated in him by his Jewish handlers. This is the Yiddish language and the culture that sprung up around it.
All of this point to a mental deficiency which you also see at work in the way that he understands economics. What should be emphasized here is that builders of nation know that an economy is made of two parts. There is the first part which consists of producing wealth like tangible goods and useful services. And there is the second part which consists of speculating and gambling, a game by which someone can accumulate the wealth created by other people. It is necessary to have these two parts in a capitalist system because risk taking is an important component of it. An economy that flies on these two wings is a dynamic economy that usually does very well.
The thing is that you can have an economy that flies on the wing of the first part only. It will be a stagnant economy but it will fly, however sluggishly as it has for thousands of years on Planet Earth. What you cannot have is an economy that flies on the second wing alone. Indeed, what happens to economies that start out well then fall off is that they lose the wing of the first part and try to rely only on speculation and gambling. It never works.
Yet, this is what Romney promises to bring to America. He never created wealth; he only accumulated what others have created. This is economics according to the Yiddish mentality. This is what is now breaking the back of America. To let Romney take over is to call on the executioner to deliver the coup de grace to America. It will be the sting of death.
The ayatollahs will survive the Romney sting, America may not. Watch out, people of America, someone is trying to gamble with your lives and with your livelihood to please his Jewish bank-rollers and his Jewish advisers.
The historical fact is that Reagan worked with Israel to supply Iran with shoulder-fired anti-aircraft Stinger missiles in return for freeing the American hostages. Given the circumstances at the time, this may well have been the best course to take. History has not yet passed a final judgment on this. As to what the Romney understanding of that historical fact may be however -- well, that's something else.
Romney expressed his views on this subject in an article he wrote under the title: “How I would check Iran's nuclear ambition” published in the Washington Post on March 5, 2012. Since he has never been President of the United States and since he has never dealt with Iran before, we can begin to formulate an idea as to how he will proceed to fulfill his promise only by analyzing his words and by studying his performance in another field of endeavor. This would be his understanding as to how an economy works. I'll come to that in a moment.
Before we embark on that study, let us look at the promise he made to deal with Iran as he explained it himself in the article. He writes that while US diplomats were held hostage “America's feckless president, Jimmy Carter, fretted in the White House.” The truth is that President Carter ordered the military to mount a rescue operation. An attempt was made but the operation ran into difficulties and was aborted. To say that the American President was feckless and that he fretted in the White House is to be fickle like only a flip-flopping Romney can be. And this alone casts doubt as to whether or not he is fit to occupy that White House. But there is more.
Romney goes on to say: “...Reagan made it crystal clear that the Iranians would pay a very stiff price.” But the fact is that they never complained about receiving the Stinger missiles or about letting the hostages go. So where is the stiff price, Mitty boy? The truth is that in return for bribing the Iranians with Stinger missiles, the Reagan negotiators had asked for a reciprocal gift which they fretted when it came to calling it a bribe. They asked that the hostages be let go on January 20. It's okay with us, said the Iran negotiators but out of curiosity, why January 20? Ron's birthday? asked the Iranians. No, inauguration day, said the Americans. Oh, that little thing you call democracy, remarked the Iranians. Yes, yes. And they all exploded in laughter. The American negotiators drank whiskey and the Iranians drank orange juice. I made up this last part.
Having understood history in his little screwy manner and in the big swaggering manner that his Jewish advisers have explained it to him, Romney continues like this: “...Reagan was serious about turning words into action.” Indeed he did; he chose life over death by thinking of the hostages and their families, and by doing the best that he could for them rather than display his phony manhood the way that they do in the Yiddish culture. In the end, Reagan got the Americans home from a foreign land and into the arms of their loved ones. In the end, Romney will send American boys and girls to die in foreign lands so as to please the Jewish donors of his electoral campaign.
Having engaged in this display of intellectual pornography, Romney advises the reader of this: “America and the world face a strikingly similar situation today; only even more is at stake.” You think for a moment that he is going to admit America is held hostage by the Jewish lobby at every electoral cycle, and that he will do what he can to break from this demonic tradition thus end it once and for all. But this is not what he promises. Instead, he says that feckless Barack Obama “has declared such an outcome unacceptable, but his rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy. While Obama frets … the Iranians are making progress...”
To elaborate on this, he takes a few paragraphs to froth at the mouth the filth that is usually leveled against Iran, the Middle Eastern types and Islam. He then promises that as President, he would move America in a direction where its “...foreign policy will be the same as Ronald Reagan's.” At this point you wonder if he will offer to give the Iranians more Stinger missiles but then, you come to think that the Israelis will probably not cooperate this time around, and that the Iranians might not want such a deal given that they now make their own missiles. Luckily and to your relief, that's not what Romney promises. What he does is promise to say and do exactly what President Obama is now doing with one exception: “I will demonstrate our commitment to the world by making Jerusalem the destination of my first foreign trip.”
This puzzles you because it is recognized both in international law and in American law that Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. Does he intend to visit Palestine to demonstrate commitment to Israel? Or is he advocating a one state solution? Or is he advocating the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank of the Jordan to facilitate the annexation of that territory by Israel? It looks like Romney has flipped on this question. It will be interesting to see if he will flop as well.
This being a good question, he does not leave you without an answer. But he waits till the end to give it to you. Here is the last sentence in his article: “Either the ayatollahs will get the message, or they will learn some very painful lessons about the meaning of American resolve.” This is the manner he employs to pretend that his resolve is American resolve which, as we may expect, is to flop every time he flips. No, Romney is not a gadfly or a bumble bee, but he is a bumbler, alright. What he will do is not supply Iran with Stinger missiles but sting America and its people with the sharp tongue of the language of insults that is inculcated in him by his Jewish handlers. This is the Yiddish language and the culture that sprung up around it.
All of this point to a mental deficiency which you also see at work in the way that he understands economics. What should be emphasized here is that builders of nation know that an economy is made of two parts. There is the first part which consists of producing wealth like tangible goods and useful services. And there is the second part which consists of speculating and gambling, a game by which someone can accumulate the wealth created by other people. It is necessary to have these two parts in a capitalist system because risk taking is an important component of it. An economy that flies on these two wings is a dynamic economy that usually does very well.
The thing is that you can have an economy that flies on the wing of the first part only. It will be a stagnant economy but it will fly, however sluggishly as it has for thousands of years on Planet Earth. What you cannot have is an economy that flies on the second wing alone. Indeed, what happens to economies that start out well then fall off is that they lose the wing of the first part and try to rely only on speculation and gambling. It never works.
Yet, this is what Romney promises to bring to America. He never created wealth; he only accumulated what others have created. This is economics according to the Yiddish mentality. This is what is now breaking the back of America. To let Romney take over is to call on the executioner to deliver the coup de grace to America. It will be the sting of death.
The ayatollahs will survive the Romney sting, America may not. Watch out, people of America, someone is trying to gamble with your lives and with your livelihood to please his Jewish bank-rollers and his Jewish advisers.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
He Says Believe Me That I Lie To You
I hate to make the sort of prediction that either becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy or that gets in the way of the unfolding of a natural phenomenon thereby deny its fulfillment. But this case has the potential to yield so much insight for just discussing it that I am willing to take a chance and discuss it here and now. What I see as being in the realm of probability in the future is that the Wall Street Journal columnist, Bret Stephens, will experience a reversal in his views with regard to the Middle Eastern issues. It may not be a total reversal but it should be significant enough to bring the man close to seeing the light in the way that many good people have done before him.
You can see signs of this in his latest column: “The 'Jewish' President” which also bears the subtitle: “Don't believe Obama when he says he has Israel's back,” published in the Journal on March 6, 2012. Both the title and the subtitle are somewhat misleading in the sense that the article is not really about Obama but about Peter Beinart who is one of the good people that saw the light and understood that the salvation of Jews will come not by the sword of biblical fantasies but by the acceptance of Jews that they are normal people who must learn to behave normally because they live in a normal world.
Stephens uses as jumping pad a happening that had President Obama address AIPAC a couple of days earlier at which time he discussed the standoff between an Iran that has embarked on a nuclear program and an Israel that feels threatened by it. It was then that the President assured his audience: “I have Israel's back”. Stephens asks if the President should be believed and he answers with a resounding no. To explain that answer, he takes a paragraph in which he lists four examples that involve the President, his defense secretary and his top national security adviser, all of which demonstrate that the President does not mean what he says according to the columnist.
He also cites a fifth example -- this one outside the realm of the standoff between Iran and Israel -- to commit what looks like an elaborate Freudian slip. He tells of the secretary of state who was visiting Tunisia recently and had a meeting with a number of students there. When asked a question on the subject of the American politicians who court the Zionist lobbies, she replied that “a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention,” to which he comments: “It seems it didn't occur to her to challenge the premise of the question.”
Whoa! several times over. What we have here is something so flabbergasting, it rivals the Zeno paradox which asks if you would believe someone that says he is a liar. Here is a guy -- apparently an intelligent one – who says you should not believe a President who makes promises during an election campaign, now chiding the secretary of state for saying don't believe politicians who make promises during election campaigns, then suggesting that she should have lied by challenging the very premise of the question. Would you now believe this guy saying that you must not believe the President?
Having so betrayed himself, the author now advises that Peter Beinart would be a source you can look at to find evidence that Mr. Obama is disingenuous. He tells us that Beinart used to advocate the war against Iraq but that he reinvented himself as a scourge of Israel and the Jewish causes. He has a book coming out soon under the title: “The Crisis of Zionism” whose chapter five, which is titled: “The Jewish President”, discusses President Obama's education on matters related to the Middle East.
Stephens discusses a few passages from that chapter to show that contrary to the common wisdom which has it that Obama was educated on such matters at the hands of his friends Rashid Khalidi and pastor Jeremiah Wright, it was a coterie of Chicago Jews who bred in the future President a vision of Israel and of American Jewry.
He goes on to say that in Beinart's point of view, this intellectual journey of Mr. Obama is evidence that he is in tune with the authentic views of ordinary Jews but not their leaders. He then surprises you by giving his own opinion. Get this now; Stephens says “maybe” to that same point of view. He has one small reservation though, which is this: “Still, one wonders why organizations more in tune with those 'real' views rarely seem to find much of a base.”
Frankly, I am puzzled as to why he would say this in the face of polls conducted in America and in Israel showing that the base is there, that it is growing and that it is supporting a peaceful resolution of all the problems relating to Israel and to its neighbors. As to why the columnist brought up this point, it could be that he is revealing a deep seated desire to start an organization that will rally a base around these ideas. I would say he will do a good job leading a movement like this. Go for it, Bret.
In the meantime though, he still is who he is, and so he writes the following to end his column: “...the important question ... [is] about the president's honesty … On the evidence … Mr. Obama's speech at Aipac was one long exercise in political cynicism.”
I just hope that these words will not so affect Bret Stephens as to prompt him to do things differently from what he would have done ordinarily. If he was about to reinvent himself, he should continue on that path at his own pace. If he were not, he will spend the rest of his life trying to explain how he can tell people to trust what he says at the same time as he tells them not to trust the people who say what he says.
You can see signs of this in his latest column: “The 'Jewish' President” which also bears the subtitle: “Don't believe Obama when he says he has Israel's back,” published in the Journal on March 6, 2012. Both the title and the subtitle are somewhat misleading in the sense that the article is not really about Obama but about Peter Beinart who is one of the good people that saw the light and understood that the salvation of Jews will come not by the sword of biblical fantasies but by the acceptance of Jews that they are normal people who must learn to behave normally because they live in a normal world.
Stephens uses as jumping pad a happening that had President Obama address AIPAC a couple of days earlier at which time he discussed the standoff between an Iran that has embarked on a nuclear program and an Israel that feels threatened by it. It was then that the President assured his audience: “I have Israel's back”. Stephens asks if the President should be believed and he answers with a resounding no. To explain that answer, he takes a paragraph in which he lists four examples that involve the President, his defense secretary and his top national security adviser, all of which demonstrate that the President does not mean what he says according to the columnist.
He also cites a fifth example -- this one outside the realm of the standoff between Iran and Israel -- to commit what looks like an elaborate Freudian slip. He tells of the secretary of state who was visiting Tunisia recently and had a meeting with a number of students there. When asked a question on the subject of the American politicians who court the Zionist lobbies, she replied that “a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention,” to which he comments: “It seems it didn't occur to her to challenge the premise of the question.”
Whoa! several times over. What we have here is something so flabbergasting, it rivals the Zeno paradox which asks if you would believe someone that says he is a liar. Here is a guy -- apparently an intelligent one – who says you should not believe a President who makes promises during an election campaign, now chiding the secretary of state for saying don't believe politicians who make promises during election campaigns, then suggesting that she should have lied by challenging the very premise of the question. Would you now believe this guy saying that you must not believe the President?
Having so betrayed himself, the author now advises that Peter Beinart would be a source you can look at to find evidence that Mr. Obama is disingenuous. He tells us that Beinart used to advocate the war against Iraq but that he reinvented himself as a scourge of Israel and the Jewish causes. He has a book coming out soon under the title: “The Crisis of Zionism” whose chapter five, which is titled: “The Jewish President”, discusses President Obama's education on matters related to the Middle East.
Stephens discusses a few passages from that chapter to show that contrary to the common wisdom which has it that Obama was educated on such matters at the hands of his friends Rashid Khalidi and pastor Jeremiah Wright, it was a coterie of Chicago Jews who bred in the future President a vision of Israel and of American Jewry.
He goes on to say that in Beinart's point of view, this intellectual journey of Mr. Obama is evidence that he is in tune with the authentic views of ordinary Jews but not their leaders. He then surprises you by giving his own opinion. Get this now; Stephens says “maybe” to that same point of view. He has one small reservation though, which is this: “Still, one wonders why organizations more in tune with those 'real' views rarely seem to find much of a base.”
Frankly, I am puzzled as to why he would say this in the face of polls conducted in America and in Israel showing that the base is there, that it is growing and that it is supporting a peaceful resolution of all the problems relating to Israel and to its neighbors. As to why the columnist brought up this point, it could be that he is revealing a deep seated desire to start an organization that will rally a base around these ideas. I would say he will do a good job leading a movement like this. Go for it, Bret.
In the meantime though, he still is who he is, and so he writes the following to end his column: “...the important question ... [is] about the president's honesty … On the evidence … Mr. Obama's speech at Aipac was one long exercise in political cynicism.”
I just hope that these words will not so affect Bret Stephens as to prompt him to do things differently from what he would have done ordinarily. If he was about to reinvent himself, he should continue on that path at his own pace. If he were not, he will spend the rest of his life trying to explain how he can tell people to trust what he says at the same time as he tells them not to trust the people who say what he says.
Monday, March 5, 2012
A Litany To Commit High Treason
First, let me try something on you, then we'll see where we should go from here. It is that I suspect I have a problem with my girlfriend because she says she likes me, yet she does the things that tell me she does not. And I have a whole host of reasons which I call infractions to prove my suspicion. For example, she has ten pairs of shoes, nine of which are black and one brown. And believe it or not, last Wednesday she wore a black pair instead of the brown even though she knows I like her better when she wears brown shoes on Wednesday. Also, when we sit in a restaurant, instead of looking at me or the food all the time, she would take a few glances – if only for a fraction of a second – away from me or the food; and this, in the span of one hour or two. You get the idea and so I do not need to give you the whole list of infractions.
So now I ask you this: What do you think of me? A jerk you say? I agree. But the thing is, I'm not like that. You want to know who is? The Jewish lobbyists. When they wish to own something as they do America at this time, they want it for themselves in whole and in part, lock stock and barrel, from head to toe, from dawn to dusk, for better or for worse, in good times and in bad, for ever and ever till infinity and past it to the next infinity and beyond that. One of those who specialize in keeping track of the American infractions towards Israel and the Jewish causes, is Dan Senor. When he writes something, he always gives you a litany of the little things that the American President does which, in his view, constitute serious infractions -- as serious as neglecting to wear brown shoes on a Wednesday, for example.
He did it again. On March 5, 2012 (today) the Wall Street Journal published his latest list under the title: “Why Israel Has Doubts About Obama” and the subtitle: “Even Democrats have publicly questioned U.S. statements and policies toward America's most important Mideast ally.” What flares up your bile as you read the stuff is that it goes down your throat like a chutzpah brew that is served in a glass of hubris. He begins by calling President Obama immodest for saying that his “administration has done more in terms of the security of … Israel than any previous administration.”
Senor takes this as being the presidential equivalent of “I love you Israel and I have your back” to which he replies in the name of Israel: “You love me, my ass. If you did, you would wear brown shoes on Wednesday.” In fact, he dismisses Obama's assertion by attributing America's largess to someone else: “...there has been increased U.S. funding for Israeli defense … the bulk of which comes from … a 10-year commitment made by … W. Bush … in 2007.”
So then, what else would satisfy these people if not just the security of Israel? you ask. And they tell you without shame, fear or reluctance that they expect nothing less than presidential high treason of country in return for a bribe. And Senor is so certain that the lobby is already getting this much from American presidents, he does not ask for it anymore. On the contrary, he explains why Obama is attributing to himself Bush's largess toward Israel by offering this analysis: “Monday he [Obama] meets with … Netanyahu … know[ing] that he lost a portion of the Jewish vote … With the election nine months away, he's scrambling to win back Jewish voters and donors.” In other words, he says matter-of-factly that in the style of the most primitive of Third World traditions, American presidents of both parties betray their country for money and foreign political support.
Now he tells you what really bugs him and what he really, really wants: “...a key element of Israel's security is deterrence [which] rests on … the perception … that Israel will defend itself, and that … America will stand by Israel.” This would be like me telling my girlfriend she cannot glance away from me because people in the restaurant will perceive such act as being a sign there is daylight between us; and perception is what counts. To avoid that dreaded possibility, she must remain visually fixated only on me or her plate at all time.
Now comes the litany of the things that Senor believes the Obama administration did to upset that order. The first came in October of 2011 when Leon Panetta raised questions about Israel -- questions that Senor characterizes as being provocative. Here is that moment: “Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena?” This would be like the girlfriend telling me to find a few more friends and have a real life with them, not just depend on her attention, her love and the fact that she is so rich and powerful, I fully depend on her in everything that sustains me. It is scandalous that she would think in these terms. What kind of relationship she wants with me? An open marriage?
Senor now sheds a tear or two: “The president's stern lectures to Israel's leaders were delivered repeatedly and very publicly at the United Nations, in Egypt and Turkey, all the while he did not make a single visit to Israel to express solidarity.” And speaking of Turkey, Israel's past lover, he says this: “Indeed, almost every time the Obama administration has scolded Israel, the charges have been repeated by Turkish officials.” Like a tender moment in a noon time soap opera, you feel like sopping at Israel's heartbreak. A moment of silence please: sop, sop, sop. Or is it whine, whine, whine?
Senor goes on to discuss a few more such incidents which took place in November and December of 2011, as well as in January and February of 2012. But having loaded the readers with a heavy dose of emotional content, he now provides the comic relief. Like me saying to the girlfriend: “I'm not the only one saying this about you, even your mother is saying it,” Senor reveals this tidbit of truth: “...Obama dismissed critics … as 'actors who want to … drive a wedge … between [him] and the [Jews].' But … these criticisms have been leveled by Democrats.”
To show how, he gives you another litany, this time of democrats such as Sen. Robert Menendez who lambasted administration officials. There were also the leading democrats, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Steny Hoyer who felt compelled to speak out. There was Sen. Charles Schumer who used even stronger language to respond to things terrible he heard, and finally there was the turncoat Senator Joe Lieberman who said of Obama: “...he's handled the relationship with Israel in a way that has … unsettled the Israelis.”
He ends by voicing concern that if re-elected, Obama will be even more one sided in his approach toward Israel. But he promises him a pat on the back if “...he will stand by Israel...” Senor then says that Obama came close to promising this much in his speech to the AIPAC crowd (yesterday), and he hopes that “this is the beginning of a policy change and not just election year rhetoric.”
In the meantime, Dan Senor is now advising the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. I wonder how he is telling them to commit acts of high treason for the benefit of Israel and hope to get away with it.
So strange a democracy America has become; let's cross our fingers and hope for the best or at least avoid the worst.
So now I ask you this: What do you think of me? A jerk you say? I agree. But the thing is, I'm not like that. You want to know who is? The Jewish lobbyists. When they wish to own something as they do America at this time, they want it for themselves in whole and in part, lock stock and barrel, from head to toe, from dawn to dusk, for better or for worse, in good times and in bad, for ever and ever till infinity and past it to the next infinity and beyond that. One of those who specialize in keeping track of the American infractions towards Israel and the Jewish causes, is Dan Senor. When he writes something, he always gives you a litany of the little things that the American President does which, in his view, constitute serious infractions -- as serious as neglecting to wear brown shoes on a Wednesday, for example.
He did it again. On March 5, 2012 (today) the Wall Street Journal published his latest list under the title: “Why Israel Has Doubts About Obama” and the subtitle: “Even Democrats have publicly questioned U.S. statements and policies toward America's most important Mideast ally.” What flares up your bile as you read the stuff is that it goes down your throat like a chutzpah brew that is served in a glass of hubris. He begins by calling President Obama immodest for saying that his “administration has done more in terms of the security of … Israel than any previous administration.”
Senor takes this as being the presidential equivalent of “I love you Israel and I have your back” to which he replies in the name of Israel: “You love me, my ass. If you did, you would wear brown shoes on Wednesday.” In fact, he dismisses Obama's assertion by attributing America's largess to someone else: “...there has been increased U.S. funding for Israeli defense … the bulk of which comes from … a 10-year commitment made by … W. Bush … in 2007.”
So then, what else would satisfy these people if not just the security of Israel? you ask. And they tell you without shame, fear or reluctance that they expect nothing less than presidential high treason of country in return for a bribe. And Senor is so certain that the lobby is already getting this much from American presidents, he does not ask for it anymore. On the contrary, he explains why Obama is attributing to himself Bush's largess toward Israel by offering this analysis: “Monday he [Obama] meets with … Netanyahu … know[ing] that he lost a portion of the Jewish vote … With the election nine months away, he's scrambling to win back Jewish voters and donors.” In other words, he says matter-of-factly that in the style of the most primitive of Third World traditions, American presidents of both parties betray their country for money and foreign political support.
Now he tells you what really bugs him and what he really, really wants: “...a key element of Israel's security is deterrence [which] rests on … the perception … that Israel will defend itself, and that … America will stand by Israel.” This would be like me telling my girlfriend she cannot glance away from me because people in the restaurant will perceive such act as being a sign there is daylight between us; and perception is what counts. To avoid that dreaded possibility, she must remain visually fixated only on me or her plate at all time.
Now comes the litany of the things that Senor believes the Obama administration did to upset that order. The first came in October of 2011 when Leon Panetta raised questions about Israel -- questions that Senor characterizes as being provocative. Here is that moment: “Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena?” This would be like the girlfriend telling me to find a few more friends and have a real life with them, not just depend on her attention, her love and the fact that she is so rich and powerful, I fully depend on her in everything that sustains me. It is scandalous that she would think in these terms. What kind of relationship she wants with me? An open marriage?
Senor now sheds a tear or two: “The president's stern lectures to Israel's leaders were delivered repeatedly and very publicly at the United Nations, in Egypt and Turkey, all the while he did not make a single visit to Israel to express solidarity.” And speaking of Turkey, Israel's past lover, he says this: “Indeed, almost every time the Obama administration has scolded Israel, the charges have been repeated by Turkish officials.” Like a tender moment in a noon time soap opera, you feel like sopping at Israel's heartbreak. A moment of silence please: sop, sop, sop. Or is it whine, whine, whine?
Senor goes on to discuss a few more such incidents which took place in November and December of 2011, as well as in January and February of 2012. But having loaded the readers with a heavy dose of emotional content, he now provides the comic relief. Like me saying to the girlfriend: “I'm not the only one saying this about you, even your mother is saying it,” Senor reveals this tidbit of truth: “...Obama dismissed critics … as 'actors who want to … drive a wedge … between [him] and the [Jews].' But … these criticisms have been leveled by Democrats.”
To show how, he gives you another litany, this time of democrats such as Sen. Robert Menendez who lambasted administration officials. There were also the leading democrats, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Steny Hoyer who felt compelled to speak out. There was Sen. Charles Schumer who used even stronger language to respond to things terrible he heard, and finally there was the turncoat Senator Joe Lieberman who said of Obama: “...he's handled the relationship with Israel in a way that has … unsettled the Israelis.”
He ends by voicing concern that if re-elected, Obama will be even more one sided in his approach toward Israel. But he promises him a pat on the back if “...he will stand by Israel...” Senor then says that Obama came close to promising this much in his speech to the AIPAC crowd (yesterday), and he hopes that “this is the beginning of a policy change and not just election year rhetoric.”
In the meantime, Dan Senor is now advising the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. I wonder how he is telling them to commit acts of high treason for the benefit of Israel and hope to get away with it.
So strange a democracy America has become; let's cross our fingers and hope for the best or at least avoid the worst.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
A Division Of Labor Trumped Up In Hell
President Obama will be talking to AIPAC and to Netanyahu over the next couple of days, and he will most certainly remember a few things. Here, for your benefit my dear reader, are some of the things.
When there is a project and there is a number of individuals executing it, you can be certain that someone will take the lead at some point and that the others will follow -- if not willingly then reluctantly. Eventually, they will all form a team and their effort will constitute a division of labor in the sense that each individual will be assigned the task they are best suited for. There may be a tension between two or more individuals competing to occupy the Alpha position but if the project is to progress, they will all come to some understanding and will get along one way or the other.
In time, a well defined hierarchy will emerge whose stability will depend on how well suited each individual will be to doing the job that was assigned to them. If the individual that has the most to offer occupies the top position, and if below him or her will line up in descending order the individuals that have less and less to offer, the formation will remain stable. And of course, the opposite will hold true in the sense that the more out of whack the line up is, the less stable the formation will be. This sort of scenario plays itself out all the time when people are brought together on an ad hoc basis to go on a mission -- be it a military operation, one of rescue, one of scouting or what have you.
The most ad hoc situation we have on Planet Earth is the line up that is represented by about two hundred sovereign nations where a few among them seek to extend their influence beyond their borders, and where all vie to remain independent. A kind of rough hierarchy has formed among them where each nation occupies a place that is supposed to be determined by the strength of its economy, the power of its military, the soundness of its system of governance and the promise of its future. But the planet is not without oddities or paradoxical situations -- the most odd being the relationship that exists between America and Israel.
The history of America began to unfold as a result of a world that went mad several times over during the past half millennium or so. It was an old world that had managed to create the waves of tired and huddled masses who sought a new world to which they could go and leave behind everything that hurts. But the reality was that for every ten thousand who suffered in the old world, only one special individual dared to pick the meager possession they had and go look for a new life in America. There, the frontier spirit of these individuals combined with the fact that they had to build everything anew – not build it on something they inherited but build it from scratch on a barren land in a desolate place. And so they rolled up their sleeves and they worked by the sweat of their foreheads to produce what sustained them. This is what made America the industrious nation that it became, a place where millions still pursue their dream as they live on the fat of a land they continually toil.
As to the history of Israel, what you see is a people of every skin color and every race converting so conveniently to the Jewish religion and claiming to have descended from the Hebrew tribes, a status they insist entitles them to a promise that God made to their ancestors eons ago. And what their religion says is that God took the Hebrews out of a land of plenty to lead them into the desert where they spent 40 years feeding on manna from the sky, a daily free lunch for which they did not have to roll up their sleeves or toil to produce by the sweat of their foreheads. Thus, to have a free lunch for life became an entitlement that the Jews have always believed was owed to them by virtue of being Jewish. To justify this insanity to a world that remains incredulous, they came up with the idea that they are the chosen children of God – and this is where the discussion ends because you cannot argue with God. How so very convenient!
Powered by a mentality like this, most of those who converted to Judaism had a hard time getting along with the rest of humanity. As a group, they roamed the Earth looking for a place to call their own but no one that came to know them closely tolerated them for any length of time because ordinary people saw them as human parasites who sought to live on the toil of others; live by the sweat of their foreheads if not by their blood and the blood of their children. The Jews were chased out of every place they occupied; they were beaten up, humiliated, gassed and even incinerated for the tricks they pulled every time they tried to get the free lunch they thought was made available to them by divine will.
And then it happened that the Jewish parasite dropped in on America where the fat of the land was so plentiful, the free lunch it was seeking for a long time was seen as being easy to have. Happy days were here again but instead of being satisfied with the embrace of their new encounter with luck, the Jewish leaders became greedy once again and went for more. They pulled every trick they learned during the millennia trying to occupy the Alpha position at the top of American institutions. And because appetite comes with eating, as the saying goes, the Jewish leaders developed an eating disorder that made them want to devour the whole world. Having the power and prestige of America at their finger tip, they made use of that to go after that world.
They scored a few successes with some countries in Eastern Europe because what they sought there was not so tangible as to affect the population directly. What they asked for was to have better relations between those governments and Israel to give the latter the semblance of legitimacy at a time when it was losing it with every act of terror it committed against the unarmed people of Palestine whose land it robbed and was robbing still. As to the rest of the Middle East, what the Jewish leaders wanted were tangible things such as more land and more water to steal from the neighbors of Israel. And because the victims had the potential to someday confront them and say enough is enough, the Jewish leaders wanted to see these countries crippled so badly as to be incapable of standing on their feet and challenge Israel.
To accomplish all this, the Jewish organizations needed the support of someone powerful with whom to divide the labor. They saw a division of labor where they would lead and the powerful would follow. As absurd as this may sound, they pulled it off because they planned the takeover as true professionals. What they did was first to take control of the American media. This done, they used the media to paint their neighbors as bad people who lived in a tough neighborhood. They argued that the neighbors deserved to be destroyed for the good of humanity, the reason why they were pleading with America: “Give us the tools and we'll do the job.” This request seemed so legitimate that America decided to become the new God who would supply Israel not only with manna to feed on, but also the hardware with which to maintain the image of a power to be reckoned with. This may have damaged Israel's neighbors somewhat but the greatest damage was done to America.
This is evident in the manner by which the Jewish organizations have managed to take control of most American institutions while exerting the minimum of effort. Because they were tolerated when they said they were better than their neighbors, it was easy for them to convince the American audiences that they were superior to them Americans. This encouraged the Jews to then claim that they were the most qualified people to occupy the Alpha position in all those American institutions. When asked to prove their claim, they gave advice in a language that was clear in its form, ambiguous in its content and having the same effect on the listener as the gibberish that is used by the writers of horoscopes. But despite the fact that every prediction they made never materialized and every advice they gave turned out to be a disaster, they got away with it in the way that the fortune tellers get away with it: people forget. But you cannot blame the Jews for what they do as much as you would the gullible Americans who let themselves be fooled so many times, you feel like giving up on them.
The Jewish motto has always been this: “Don't be afraid to act like a parasite while relying on the humanity of your American host because the chances are that he will keep supplying you with money, with his blood and the blood of his children.” The Americans have been doing this for several decades now, so much so that the new generation of American boys and girls is growing up in the belief that the Jew is a God that must be worshiped. And because to obey the law is something that is binding as much as a heavenly command, it was thought that to pass specific laws in America that serve Israel or the Jewish causes would strengthen the image of Israel and that of the Jews as being the official Gods of America. The Jewish organizations liked this idea so much that they made it a habit to call on every new crop of recently elected young legislators to pass decrees that sound like religious dogmas aimed at serving Israel and the Jews at the expense of America if need be.
The net result has been that America, which is the most worthy nation on the Planet, has been subordinated to Israel, the least worthy entity on the Planet. Instead of being asked: “Give us the tools and we'll do the job,” America is now being told: “get on with the job I told you to do or else.” There is not even the mention of a division of labor like it used to be. And this is because the Israelis and the Jewish leaders now wish to remain behind the scene bosses while true American boys and girls do the work for them as did the coolies of past centuries, then die and be gotten rid of in landfills like disposable toy soldiers now called trash.
Thus, Mr. Obama will remember and will keep in mind at all time the fact that when you get into an adventure like he is asked to get into, and when you do the cost/benefit analysis, you do not take into account only what it will cost right now to bomb a place like Iran but what it will cost your children and their children in the decades to come. He will think, for example, of the cost that America is now paying for the blunders that the American leaders committed in Iran and in South America several generations ago.
Thus, instead of appeasing the dogs at AIPAC by promising them what they will most certainly turn into a religious dogma, and instead of welcoming with open arms the rug pissing dog that never tires of making demands, Mr. Obama will keep in mind the story of a former Minister of Transport in Canada who treated the Israelis that tried to pee on his rug like the dogs that they were. What happened was that they wanted to stir up hysteria throughout the land the way that they do now in the English speaking world. To this end, they said they had information to the effect that an EL AL plane that was coming to land in Toronto was going to be hit by a missile. Without permission, the pilot landed the plane in the nearby city of Hamilton instead. The Minister did not like the idea at all because there was not a shred of evidence as to a threat made against El Al or any other airline in Canada; and he communicated this message to the pilot of the Israeli plane.
The plane proceeded on its route but on its way back landed in Hamilton once again instead of Toronto. This made the Minister of Transport so furious that he did not dither, did not play games and did not play politics with the Israelis. Instead, he put it to them officially that one more act of this sort and El Al will never again land anywhere in Canada. The Israelis got the message and they never again pulled a stunt like this.
If you want to know why the Jewish organizations and their leaders keep saying that the Arabs and the Muslims understand only the language of threat, it is because the truth is that the Arabs and the Muslims never cower at a threat or the show of force. Going about their daily lives, they only do what they have the right to do, and this makes it so that they stiffen their backs and become more resolute in the face of a threat. On the other hand, the Jews who always try to get something for nothing are the ones who respond to threats and to the show of force because this is the only language they understand; the only language they speak. Treat them the way that they ask you to treat the Arabs and the Muslims, and this will be the sure way to secure peace where you want it.
Mr. Obama will do well to tell AIPAC and Netanyahu to take a hike. This will have a better outcome for America, for the world and for all the innocent Jews out there who deserve better than the dogs of AIPAC and the pissing dog from Israel.
When there is a project and there is a number of individuals executing it, you can be certain that someone will take the lead at some point and that the others will follow -- if not willingly then reluctantly. Eventually, they will all form a team and their effort will constitute a division of labor in the sense that each individual will be assigned the task they are best suited for. There may be a tension between two or more individuals competing to occupy the Alpha position but if the project is to progress, they will all come to some understanding and will get along one way or the other.
In time, a well defined hierarchy will emerge whose stability will depend on how well suited each individual will be to doing the job that was assigned to them. If the individual that has the most to offer occupies the top position, and if below him or her will line up in descending order the individuals that have less and less to offer, the formation will remain stable. And of course, the opposite will hold true in the sense that the more out of whack the line up is, the less stable the formation will be. This sort of scenario plays itself out all the time when people are brought together on an ad hoc basis to go on a mission -- be it a military operation, one of rescue, one of scouting or what have you.
The most ad hoc situation we have on Planet Earth is the line up that is represented by about two hundred sovereign nations where a few among them seek to extend their influence beyond their borders, and where all vie to remain independent. A kind of rough hierarchy has formed among them where each nation occupies a place that is supposed to be determined by the strength of its economy, the power of its military, the soundness of its system of governance and the promise of its future. But the planet is not without oddities or paradoxical situations -- the most odd being the relationship that exists between America and Israel.
The history of America began to unfold as a result of a world that went mad several times over during the past half millennium or so. It was an old world that had managed to create the waves of tired and huddled masses who sought a new world to which they could go and leave behind everything that hurts. But the reality was that for every ten thousand who suffered in the old world, only one special individual dared to pick the meager possession they had and go look for a new life in America. There, the frontier spirit of these individuals combined with the fact that they had to build everything anew – not build it on something they inherited but build it from scratch on a barren land in a desolate place. And so they rolled up their sleeves and they worked by the sweat of their foreheads to produce what sustained them. This is what made America the industrious nation that it became, a place where millions still pursue their dream as they live on the fat of a land they continually toil.
As to the history of Israel, what you see is a people of every skin color and every race converting so conveniently to the Jewish religion and claiming to have descended from the Hebrew tribes, a status they insist entitles them to a promise that God made to their ancestors eons ago. And what their religion says is that God took the Hebrews out of a land of plenty to lead them into the desert where they spent 40 years feeding on manna from the sky, a daily free lunch for which they did not have to roll up their sleeves or toil to produce by the sweat of their foreheads. Thus, to have a free lunch for life became an entitlement that the Jews have always believed was owed to them by virtue of being Jewish. To justify this insanity to a world that remains incredulous, they came up with the idea that they are the chosen children of God – and this is where the discussion ends because you cannot argue with God. How so very convenient!
Powered by a mentality like this, most of those who converted to Judaism had a hard time getting along with the rest of humanity. As a group, they roamed the Earth looking for a place to call their own but no one that came to know them closely tolerated them for any length of time because ordinary people saw them as human parasites who sought to live on the toil of others; live by the sweat of their foreheads if not by their blood and the blood of their children. The Jews were chased out of every place they occupied; they were beaten up, humiliated, gassed and even incinerated for the tricks they pulled every time they tried to get the free lunch they thought was made available to them by divine will.
And then it happened that the Jewish parasite dropped in on America where the fat of the land was so plentiful, the free lunch it was seeking for a long time was seen as being easy to have. Happy days were here again but instead of being satisfied with the embrace of their new encounter with luck, the Jewish leaders became greedy once again and went for more. They pulled every trick they learned during the millennia trying to occupy the Alpha position at the top of American institutions. And because appetite comes with eating, as the saying goes, the Jewish leaders developed an eating disorder that made them want to devour the whole world. Having the power and prestige of America at their finger tip, they made use of that to go after that world.
They scored a few successes with some countries in Eastern Europe because what they sought there was not so tangible as to affect the population directly. What they asked for was to have better relations between those governments and Israel to give the latter the semblance of legitimacy at a time when it was losing it with every act of terror it committed against the unarmed people of Palestine whose land it robbed and was robbing still. As to the rest of the Middle East, what the Jewish leaders wanted were tangible things such as more land and more water to steal from the neighbors of Israel. And because the victims had the potential to someday confront them and say enough is enough, the Jewish leaders wanted to see these countries crippled so badly as to be incapable of standing on their feet and challenge Israel.
To accomplish all this, the Jewish organizations needed the support of someone powerful with whom to divide the labor. They saw a division of labor where they would lead and the powerful would follow. As absurd as this may sound, they pulled it off because they planned the takeover as true professionals. What they did was first to take control of the American media. This done, they used the media to paint their neighbors as bad people who lived in a tough neighborhood. They argued that the neighbors deserved to be destroyed for the good of humanity, the reason why they were pleading with America: “Give us the tools and we'll do the job.” This request seemed so legitimate that America decided to become the new God who would supply Israel not only with manna to feed on, but also the hardware with which to maintain the image of a power to be reckoned with. This may have damaged Israel's neighbors somewhat but the greatest damage was done to America.
This is evident in the manner by which the Jewish organizations have managed to take control of most American institutions while exerting the minimum of effort. Because they were tolerated when they said they were better than their neighbors, it was easy for them to convince the American audiences that they were superior to them Americans. This encouraged the Jews to then claim that they were the most qualified people to occupy the Alpha position in all those American institutions. When asked to prove their claim, they gave advice in a language that was clear in its form, ambiguous in its content and having the same effect on the listener as the gibberish that is used by the writers of horoscopes. But despite the fact that every prediction they made never materialized and every advice they gave turned out to be a disaster, they got away with it in the way that the fortune tellers get away with it: people forget. But you cannot blame the Jews for what they do as much as you would the gullible Americans who let themselves be fooled so many times, you feel like giving up on them.
The Jewish motto has always been this: “Don't be afraid to act like a parasite while relying on the humanity of your American host because the chances are that he will keep supplying you with money, with his blood and the blood of his children.” The Americans have been doing this for several decades now, so much so that the new generation of American boys and girls is growing up in the belief that the Jew is a God that must be worshiped. And because to obey the law is something that is binding as much as a heavenly command, it was thought that to pass specific laws in America that serve Israel or the Jewish causes would strengthen the image of Israel and that of the Jews as being the official Gods of America. The Jewish organizations liked this idea so much that they made it a habit to call on every new crop of recently elected young legislators to pass decrees that sound like religious dogmas aimed at serving Israel and the Jews at the expense of America if need be.
The net result has been that America, which is the most worthy nation on the Planet, has been subordinated to Israel, the least worthy entity on the Planet. Instead of being asked: “Give us the tools and we'll do the job,” America is now being told: “get on with the job I told you to do or else.” There is not even the mention of a division of labor like it used to be. And this is because the Israelis and the Jewish leaders now wish to remain behind the scene bosses while true American boys and girls do the work for them as did the coolies of past centuries, then die and be gotten rid of in landfills like disposable toy soldiers now called trash.
Thus, Mr. Obama will remember and will keep in mind at all time the fact that when you get into an adventure like he is asked to get into, and when you do the cost/benefit analysis, you do not take into account only what it will cost right now to bomb a place like Iran but what it will cost your children and their children in the decades to come. He will think, for example, of the cost that America is now paying for the blunders that the American leaders committed in Iran and in South America several generations ago.
Thus, instead of appeasing the dogs at AIPAC by promising them what they will most certainly turn into a religious dogma, and instead of welcoming with open arms the rug pissing dog that never tires of making demands, Mr. Obama will keep in mind the story of a former Minister of Transport in Canada who treated the Israelis that tried to pee on his rug like the dogs that they were. What happened was that they wanted to stir up hysteria throughout the land the way that they do now in the English speaking world. To this end, they said they had information to the effect that an EL AL plane that was coming to land in Toronto was going to be hit by a missile. Without permission, the pilot landed the plane in the nearby city of Hamilton instead. The Minister did not like the idea at all because there was not a shred of evidence as to a threat made against El Al or any other airline in Canada; and he communicated this message to the pilot of the Israeli plane.
The plane proceeded on its route but on its way back landed in Hamilton once again instead of Toronto. This made the Minister of Transport so furious that he did not dither, did not play games and did not play politics with the Israelis. Instead, he put it to them officially that one more act of this sort and El Al will never again land anywhere in Canada. The Israelis got the message and they never again pulled a stunt like this.
If you want to know why the Jewish organizations and their leaders keep saying that the Arabs and the Muslims understand only the language of threat, it is because the truth is that the Arabs and the Muslims never cower at a threat or the show of force. Going about their daily lives, they only do what they have the right to do, and this makes it so that they stiffen their backs and become more resolute in the face of a threat. On the other hand, the Jews who always try to get something for nothing are the ones who respond to threats and to the show of force because this is the only language they understand; the only language they speak. Treat them the way that they ask you to treat the Arabs and the Muslims, and this will be the sure way to secure peace where you want it.
Mr. Obama will do well to tell AIPAC and Netanyahu to take a hike. This will have a better outcome for America, for the world and for all the innocent Jews out there who deserve better than the dogs of AIPAC and the pissing dog from Israel.
Friday, March 2, 2012
A Lost Opportunity To Win Respect
There are pyromaniacs who become firefighters to give themselves ample opportunities to set fire to property and avoid suspicion. There are pedophiles who would coach a sports little league to have access to children, abuse them and remain safe. And there are psychotic devils who become public thinkers to have a platform from which to create mayhem and get paid for pushing an illegitimate agenda. Two characters who fall in the last category are Frederick W. Kagan and Maseh Zarif, both of whom are members of what they call the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute. They wrote: “America's Iranian Self-Deception”, an article that was published in the Wall Street Journal on February 27, 2012 and given the subtitle: “Let's admit the facts about its nuclear program and then have an honest debate about what to do.”
When you read the subtitle and you see in it the words: fact and honest, you get the impression that the authors have decided to honestly play the role of unbiased observers and give you the facts only. You expect them to present a true assessment of the situation on the ground thereby let you and let everyone else make your own judgment. And you expect that when the debates will begin, the debaters among you will have the chance to make your own points without being nudged to take one position or another. Thus, the initial image you create in your mind of the two authors is that of someone who stands as righteous as a firefighter, a coach or a public thinker dedicated to serve you and the public. But when you start to read the article, you realize that you are looking at a pyromaniac, a pedophile or a psychotic devil out to do a job on you and the public.
You do not even have to read the whole article to reach that conclusion. The moment that you finish reading the first sentence, the conclusion is slammed in your face like a baseball bat that has slipped the hands of its thrower. This is how that sentence reads: “Americans are being played for fools – and fooling themselves.” You see right away that this is not the way that people begin an argument when they intend to give an unbiased assessment of a situation; it is what people do when they intend to peddle a laundry list of points that support one side of the story while ignoring all the points at the other side.
Two more sentences follow by which the authors continue to deny there is another side to the story. Here they are back to back: “There is no case to be made that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. There is no evidence that Iran's decision-makers are willing to stop the nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions or anything else.” Furthermore, to buttress their argument and to avoid the total collapse of their presentation, the authors name-drop and use as a crutch both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN Security Council resolutions.
Because they and others like them were the ones responsible for involving America in the disastrous adventure that came to be known as Iraq -- an adventure that may yet prove to be the straw that broke the back of the American camel -- Kagan and Zarif thought of a cheap trick to get around the difficulty of convincing the superpower to take on a similar adventure. It is that the adventure they have been promoting up to now was seen to have the potential to be more disastrous than Iraq by several orders of magnitude given the new strategic realities in the Middle East. And so, to get around the difficulty, the two authors employed the trick of attacking Dennis Ross, what they call anonymous administration officials and the media for what they say has been confused policy discussion. They also accuse all those people of “conflating intelligence assessment with policy recommendation.”
And they go on to say this: “The prospect of war with Iran is so distasteful that people are desperate to persuade themselves that the problem is not serious.” But to show how serious it is in their view, they make a laundry list of what the IAEA has said about the matter lately. However, nothing of what came on that list turned out to be new because all of it was aired before and dismissed at one time or another by the experts in the field who called it undeserving of a skirmish, let alone a full scale war. And this is because the war that will be unleashed will be of the sort that will result not only in immediate casualties too horrifying to contemplate but also lead to the continued generation of consequences now unpredictable but that will be nefarious to the extreme for decades to come as this has been the pattern with the empires that rose by design or by accident to then conquer, expand and die ignominiously.
Being realistic enough to know that this part of their presentation was too weak to sway the reader, the two authors now approach the subject from another angle; that of challenging the motivation of the Iranian leaders. To this end, they draw up another laundry list; this one containing the difficulties that Iran and its people are suffering because of the sanctions that were slapped on them by the international community. This done, the authors ask this question: “What peaceful purpose could be served by accepting such damage to pursue an illegal nuclear program?”
Having started a new discussion, they participate in it with this: “The international community has … offered Iran … uranium … to produce both electricity and medical isotopes – and Iran has refused.” This is false in the sense that the offer was neither simple nor devoid of the sort of conditions that the Iranians see as unacceptable. Also, the Iranian refusal was not categorical but left the door open for more discussion. The trouble was that the American component of the negotiating team (five plus one as it was called) made the offer “a take it or leave” it proposition. This being a version of the “my way or the highway” approach that the Americans know from their experience at home is a sure killer of negotiations, we can only conclude that America deliberately made an offer that can only be refused. But having conveniently turned reality upside down, the two authors conclude that: “Iran's behavior makes sense only if its leadership is determined to … develop and field atomic weapons.”
To cement this view in the mind of the readers, Kagan and Zarif do something I am personally familiar with. So let me tell you about it first; then I'll tell you what they did. I know from experience that the act of blacklisting someone works because it is essentially the rule of a mob out of control. You participate in the act of bullying someone because everyone else is doing it -- and this is enough of a peer pressure to make you forget every principle of rightness you grew up with. You do the most horrible thing to someone you know is innocent because if you don't, you fear it will be done to you. It is cowardice of the lowest kind.
Throughout my forty years ordeal with being on the blacklist, I was offered a way out if I betrayed my principles and went along. I was told repeatedly that this was something everyone did to enjoy the fruits of their talent in this meritocracy -- which I was supposed to believe was the most glorious thing to happen to the Universe since the Big Bang. But I knew something that even the well-meaning among these people didn't know. I thought of telling them about it but refrained because I thought it will be a waste of time given how removed they were from my state of mind. But then something happened that I thought had the potential to tell them what I would have. It was the people of Egypt who rose up to take back the dignity they felt they were losing. The thing is that to some of us, dignity is a far more precious commodity than anything your talent can procure for you however much you merit to have it. I could not explain all this to even my closest friends, and so I hoped that the Egyptian Revolution would.
At first, some people over here got the message of the Revolution over there but then lost it. I tried to find out why, and found to my dismay that the Yiddish inspired bumper sticker culture in which we live on this Continent cannot go deeper than the material on which the message is printed. To these people, dignity was a word that fit nicely on a bumper sticker so they took it, savored it and swallowed it. But when the people of Egypt put dignity into practice by telling the IMF, the World Bank, Europe and America to take their money and shove it if they will want to impose conditions, the bumper sticker crowd became disoriented. What happened was that they looked at the depth which dignity was generating and they got the vertigo. No way, they said to themselves, no way I'm going to overload myself with this.
Like a scavenger smelling the blood of a freshly killed prey, those of the Kagan ilk sensed an opportunity here they could not pass up. It happened that Ms. Naga -- the Iron Lady of Egypt as someone called her -- was heard telling some people off, and so they labeled her a holdover from the previous regime. The professional haters latched on to the word “holdover” and threw it at the crowd to make it feel oriented again -- which it did because the word easily fit on a bumper sticker. It was a nice replacement to the word dignity that went out the window to cede its place to the new word.
In the meantime, the haters were creating the image of a woman imposing her will on 80 million people who were otherwise itching to take orders from abroad. The trick worked because the made-up image of Ms. Naga was not that of a dignified woman enjoying enough depth to give a thousand American editors the vertigo, but an image so simple and so superficial, it became bumperesque enough to be repeated over and over. And from that time on, holdover was the word that purveyed a very thin message. The old American values had gone out the window and the new Yiddish culture had taken their place.
Knowing what works in this dirty game, Kagan and Zarif are using the same trick on the Iranian leaders. Given that the people of Iran are enduring hardship because they see their fight as being one of dignity, Kagan and his pal are having a field day creating images that fit on a bumper sticker. By way of example, there is an infamous paragraph -- quoted here in its entirety -- showing the potential for six bumper sticker quotations: “Iran is, however, (1) preparing rhetorically for war with the West. Iran's military (2) has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, (3) attack American naval ships passing through it, and (4) pre-empt what it perceives to be preparations for an attack on Iran. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other political figures (5) have seconded these threats, and no Iranian leader (6) has denounced them.”
Now, my friend, imagine that to put things in perspective and to be honest like they promised at the start they will be, Kagan and Zarif had written the following explanation just before that infamous paragraph: In response to the constant drumbeat in Tel Aviv and New York about all options being on the table, and despite the fact that emissaries from those two places are now running around the world to lobby whom they can and get them to join the mob that is out to cripple the Iranian economy, the leaders of Iran have warned America and Israel of the following, should they be foolish enough to escalate their ill-advised adventure into a hot war such as they hint they plan to do.
Had the authors of the article done this, they would have added so much depth to the subject matter, it could not be expressed on a bumper sticker. However, they would have been intellectually honest and would have achieved the purpose that their article was supposed to achieve. And the ending as they have it now: “...the debate must take place on the basis of a reality … Those who oppose military action against Iran under any circumstances must say so ... Those who advocate military action must ... accept and consider the consequences ... neither American nor Israeli nor any Western interest is served by lying to ourselves...” would have commanded the respect of the readers.
But I'm afraid, Frederick Kagan and Maseh Zarif, have failed miserably to win any level of respect with this article.
When you read the subtitle and you see in it the words: fact and honest, you get the impression that the authors have decided to honestly play the role of unbiased observers and give you the facts only. You expect them to present a true assessment of the situation on the ground thereby let you and let everyone else make your own judgment. And you expect that when the debates will begin, the debaters among you will have the chance to make your own points without being nudged to take one position or another. Thus, the initial image you create in your mind of the two authors is that of someone who stands as righteous as a firefighter, a coach or a public thinker dedicated to serve you and the public. But when you start to read the article, you realize that you are looking at a pyromaniac, a pedophile or a psychotic devil out to do a job on you and the public.
You do not even have to read the whole article to reach that conclusion. The moment that you finish reading the first sentence, the conclusion is slammed in your face like a baseball bat that has slipped the hands of its thrower. This is how that sentence reads: “Americans are being played for fools – and fooling themselves.” You see right away that this is not the way that people begin an argument when they intend to give an unbiased assessment of a situation; it is what people do when they intend to peddle a laundry list of points that support one side of the story while ignoring all the points at the other side.
Two more sentences follow by which the authors continue to deny there is another side to the story. Here they are back to back: “There is no case to be made that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. There is no evidence that Iran's decision-makers are willing to stop the nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions or anything else.” Furthermore, to buttress their argument and to avoid the total collapse of their presentation, the authors name-drop and use as a crutch both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN Security Council resolutions.
Because they and others like them were the ones responsible for involving America in the disastrous adventure that came to be known as Iraq -- an adventure that may yet prove to be the straw that broke the back of the American camel -- Kagan and Zarif thought of a cheap trick to get around the difficulty of convincing the superpower to take on a similar adventure. It is that the adventure they have been promoting up to now was seen to have the potential to be more disastrous than Iraq by several orders of magnitude given the new strategic realities in the Middle East. And so, to get around the difficulty, the two authors employed the trick of attacking Dennis Ross, what they call anonymous administration officials and the media for what they say has been confused policy discussion. They also accuse all those people of “conflating intelligence assessment with policy recommendation.”
And they go on to say this: “The prospect of war with Iran is so distasteful that people are desperate to persuade themselves that the problem is not serious.” But to show how serious it is in their view, they make a laundry list of what the IAEA has said about the matter lately. However, nothing of what came on that list turned out to be new because all of it was aired before and dismissed at one time or another by the experts in the field who called it undeserving of a skirmish, let alone a full scale war. And this is because the war that will be unleashed will be of the sort that will result not only in immediate casualties too horrifying to contemplate but also lead to the continued generation of consequences now unpredictable but that will be nefarious to the extreme for decades to come as this has been the pattern with the empires that rose by design or by accident to then conquer, expand and die ignominiously.
Being realistic enough to know that this part of their presentation was too weak to sway the reader, the two authors now approach the subject from another angle; that of challenging the motivation of the Iranian leaders. To this end, they draw up another laundry list; this one containing the difficulties that Iran and its people are suffering because of the sanctions that were slapped on them by the international community. This done, the authors ask this question: “What peaceful purpose could be served by accepting such damage to pursue an illegal nuclear program?”
Having started a new discussion, they participate in it with this: “The international community has … offered Iran … uranium … to produce both electricity and medical isotopes – and Iran has refused.” This is false in the sense that the offer was neither simple nor devoid of the sort of conditions that the Iranians see as unacceptable. Also, the Iranian refusal was not categorical but left the door open for more discussion. The trouble was that the American component of the negotiating team (five plus one as it was called) made the offer “a take it or leave” it proposition. This being a version of the “my way or the highway” approach that the Americans know from their experience at home is a sure killer of negotiations, we can only conclude that America deliberately made an offer that can only be refused. But having conveniently turned reality upside down, the two authors conclude that: “Iran's behavior makes sense only if its leadership is determined to … develop and field atomic weapons.”
To cement this view in the mind of the readers, Kagan and Zarif do something I am personally familiar with. So let me tell you about it first; then I'll tell you what they did. I know from experience that the act of blacklisting someone works because it is essentially the rule of a mob out of control. You participate in the act of bullying someone because everyone else is doing it -- and this is enough of a peer pressure to make you forget every principle of rightness you grew up with. You do the most horrible thing to someone you know is innocent because if you don't, you fear it will be done to you. It is cowardice of the lowest kind.
Throughout my forty years ordeal with being on the blacklist, I was offered a way out if I betrayed my principles and went along. I was told repeatedly that this was something everyone did to enjoy the fruits of their talent in this meritocracy -- which I was supposed to believe was the most glorious thing to happen to the Universe since the Big Bang. But I knew something that even the well-meaning among these people didn't know. I thought of telling them about it but refrained because I thought it will be a waste of time given how removed they were from my state of mind. But then something happened that I thought had the potential to tell them what I would have. It was the people of Egypt who rose up to take back the dignity they felt they were losing. The thing is that to some of us, dignity is a far more precious commodity than anything your talent can procure for you however much you merit to have it. I could not explain all this to even my closest friends, and so I hoped that the Egyptian Revolution would.
At first, some people over here got the message of the Revolution over there but then lost it. I tried to find out why, and found to my dismay that the Yiddish inspired bumper sticker culture in which we live on this Continent cannot go deeper than the material on which the message is printed. To these people, dignity was a word that fit nicely on a bumper sticker so they took it, savored it and swallowed it. But when the people of Egypt put dignity into practice by telling the IMF, the World Bank, Europe and America to take their money and shove it if they will want to impose conditions, the bumper sticker crowd became disoriented. What happened was that they looked at the depth which dignity was generating and they got the vertigo. No way, they said to themselves, no way I'm going to overload myself with this.
Like a scavenger smelling the blood of a freshly killed prey, those of the Kagan ilk sensed an opportunity here they could not pass up. It happened that Ms. Naga -- the Iron Lady of Egypt as someone called her -- was heard telling some people off, and so they labeled her a holdover from the previous regime. The professional haters latched on to the word “holdover” and threw it at the crowd to make it feel oriented again -- which it did because the word easily fit on a bumper sticker. It was a nice replacement to the word dignity that went out the window to cede its place to the new word.
In the meantime, the haters were creating the image of a woman imposing her will on 80 million people who were otherwise itching to take orders from abroad. The trick worked because the made-up image of Ms. Naga was not that of a dignified woman enjoying enough depth to give a thousand American editors the vertigo, but an image so simple and so superficial, it became bumperesque enough to be repeated over and over. And from that time on, holdover was the word that purveyed a very thin message. The old American values had gone out the window and the new Yiddish culture had taken their place.
Knowing what works in this dirty game, Kagan and Zarif are using the same trick on the Iranian leaders. Given that the people of Iran are enduring hardship because they see their fight as being one of dignity, Kagan and his pal are having a field day creating images that fit on a bumper sticker. By way of example, there is an infamous paragraph -- quoted here in its entirety -- showing the potential for six bumper sticker quotations: “Iran is, however, (1) preparing rhetorically for war with the West. Iran's military (2) has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, (3) attack American naval ships passing through it, and (4) pre-empt what it perceives to be preparations for an attack on Iran. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other political figures (5) have seconded these threats, and no Iranian leader (6) has denounced them.”
Now, my friend, imagine that to put things in perspective and to be honest like they promised at the start they will be, Kagan and Zarif had written the following explanation just before that infamous paragraph: In response to the constant drumbeat in Tel Aviv and New York about all options being on the table, and despite the fact that emissaries from those two places are now running around the world to lobby whom they can and get them to join the mob that is out to cripple the Iranian economy, the leaders of Iran have warned America and Israel of the following, should they be foolish enough to escalate their ill-advised adventure into a hot war such as they hint they plan to do.
Had the authors of the article done this, they would have added so much depth to the subject matter, it could not be expressed on a bumper sticker. However, they would have been intellectually honest and would have achieved the purpose that their article was supposed to achieve. And the ending as they have it now: “...the debate must take place on the basis of a reality … Those who oppose military action against Iran under any circumstances must say so ... Those who advocate military action must ... accept and consider the consequences ... neither American nor Israeli nor any Western interest is served by lying to ourselves...” would have commanded the respect of the readers.
But I'm afraid, Frederick Kagan and Maseh Zarif, have failed miserably to win any level of respect with this article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)