What Have You Done For Me Lately?

No it's not me asking that question; it is one I hear America ask, having been culturally contaminated and effectively impregnated by the Yiddish culture. An illustration of this reality came on April 12, 2012 when two articles were published; one exposing the Yiddish mentality, the other showing its effect on the American state of mind. The first article was written by Clifford May under the title: “It's Not the Arab Spring, It's the Nahda” and the subtitle: “Uprisings in the Middle East are about the 'Islamization of life,' not democracy, ” and was published in National Review Online. The second article was written by Stephen Hayes under the title: “What the U.S.-Iran Talks Will Ignore” and the subtitle: “Everyone's talking nukes, but Iran is a world hub of jihadist terrorism, including al Qaeda,” and was published in the Wall Street Journal.

As you might expect, I aim to show that the two articles express a point of view to the effect that the world owes them something, and lamenting that the thing has not been delivered. However, each article gets into the meat of the argument after an introduction that shows one presentation as being a purely Yiddish approach that is tailor made to impress an American audience, while the other presentation is essentially an American discussion but one that has a Yiddish slant. The latter would be the Stephen Hayes article which starts normally but then bends to adopt the Yiddish mode. By contrast, the Clifford May article sprints into its unabashed Yiddish mode right from the start and stays on it till the end.

The May article takes two paragraphs to start a discussion based on the typical Yiddish bespeak: I am an American, you and I are okay but the world is screwed up and has been from the beginning. He tells of the many journalists, diplomats and academics who failed to properly diagnose what they have erroneously termed Arab Spring. Instead, he calls what happened in the Arab World a series of regional upheavals, and says that it all started “when a downtrodden fruit monger in Tunisia self-immolated.” He goes on to say that the journalists, diplomats and academics were mistaken because they thought they heard an echo of the Czechoslovakia reforms – those that were extinguished in the Spring of 1968 by a Soviet invasion.

This done, he says that America had the only genuine revolution in history because all the other revolutions -- such as the French, the Russian, the Iranian and other instances -- have only managed to replace one form of despotism by another. Obviously, this guy knows very little about American history because if he knew better, he would have realized that without the French, America would today be looking like another Canada; an adjunct to the British Commonwealth. Maybe Clifford May should go to the New York Harbor and take a good look at the Statue of Liberty.

Having established his ignorance with respect to American history, he musters enough hubris to educate his readers on the subject of the Muslim world. He asserts that in this world, there are only a few freedom fighters who are Western educated intellectuals anyway. The downside of this, he says, is that they are less disciplined than the Islamic militants who, besides being disciplined, have unlimited amounts of money. And he warns that these people would use violence to achieve their objectives. He refers to them as the Islamists who view the stormy new season not as being an Arab Spring but as being a “Nahda” which -- he correctly notes -- is Arabic for renaissance, itself a French word which means rebirth.

Where he compounds his ignorance is in the use of the Arabic word as a launchpad to make the following statement: “in this case, they believe, a rebirth of global Islamic power.” And this is where you see how ignorance quickly mutates to become insanity. It is that he believes -- and he wants you to believe that a downtrodden Tunisian fruit vendor set himself on fire, and was followed by hundreds if not thousands of others (mostly Western-educated intellectuals) who braved the bullets and the tank shells and who shed their blood … but to do what? To spark a rebirth of global Islamic power? Let me tell you something, this self appointed educator has more than hubris coming out of his ears; he has bullshit coming out of his mouth and his nostrils.

What he says happened that triggered this train of thought is that he attended a meeting where “Islamists” were invited to Washington to speak about themselves. He met several of them in person, some of whom he spoke with and some of whom he only listened to the speeches they gave. He quotes them in the article and comments on that. The puzzling part, however, is that he says someone named Khairat Al-Shater was there, but he does not say he spoke with him, and he does not quote him as having said something during the meeting. Instead, he reports on something that the man uttered a year ago; the very quote he used earlier to make the insane charge that the Western educated Islamists seek to spark a rebirth of global Islamic power. And so you ask: Why did he not confront Al-Shater and ask him to explain his uttering of a year ago? There is no answer to this question in the article. But who knows? Maybe he did ask the man and got an answer, but he is not telling us because it contradicts his theory.

In this case, let me tell you what the uttering was and what it meant. Khairat Al-Shater is a member of the Party in Egypt known as the Muslim Brotherhood. When the old regime fell and the Party realized it will be called upon to govern the country, Al-Shater spelled out his vision. He spelled it in Arabic, and this is how it was translated: “restoring Islam in its all-encompassing conception … establishing the Nahda of the Ummah [Muslim nation] on the basis of Islam.” The emphasis [Muslim nation] was made by Clifford May because this is the point he is making. It is the point where his insanity and those of many like him begin.

The truth is that the word “umm” in Arabic means mother. In the same way that in most languages, people refer to their nation as the motherland or the fatherland, the Arabs refer to their nations as “al ummah.” When in Egypt someone speaks in an Egyptian context, he will not refer to Egypt as “Al ummah al Masriah” which would translate into the Egyptian motherland, he will simply say al ummah. And this is what Al-Shater was doing as he spoke about Egypt in the wake of the Egyptian Revolution. If he wanted to say Muslim nation while speaking in the Egyptian context, he would have specified: “al ummah al Islamiah” which he did not do.

So much for this part of Al-Shater's speech. As to what he said about Islam and Egypt, it would not be too different from what someone like Rick Santorum would say about Christianity and America. It may raise the eyebrow of some people but it is hardly something that should trigger a hysteria such as it happens to Clifford May and those like him.

But how did the expression Muslim nation get into the Yiddish-American vocabulary of anti-Arab, anti-Muslim hate? It happened when the Americans used to love the Jihadists of Afghanistan. These were the people who fought the Soviet occupation of their country and were calling themselves Mujahedeen. The Americans loved them so much that they encouraged them to ignite their religious Muslim fervor and fight not a Jihad but a “Jihad fi sabeel Allah” against the godless communists. You see, my friend, just as you can say ummah to mean the nation, or say ummah Islamiah to specify Muslim nation, you can also say Jihad to mean struggle or say Jihad fi sabeel Allah to specify struggle for the sake of God. Jihad alone does not mean holy war; jihad fi sabeel Allah means holy war. Get it now?

And so, when the Mujahedeen kicked the Soviets out of Afghanistan with the help of the Americans, only to be double-crossed by the Americans who spat them out after they used them, the spurned Afghans said to themselves that if the Christians could use them to beat the godless Soviets, they should seek to establish the Ummah Islamiah thus be in a position to spit on the Americans. These were the Talibans who could do no more to fulfill their dream than blow up a few Buddhist statues. They did this in their quest to show their Muslim credentials but succeeded only to show how stupid they were. And where they were spat out by the Americans, they were now spat on by the whole world. There is nothing to fear when it comes to these kids and less to get hysterical about.

But being who they are, Jewish Americans lack the intellectual integrity to describe something the way they see it even when they know what they are talking about. Instead, they grab every bit of information they can get their hands on; they place them in a cultural salad bowl, add to them vinegar if not a virulent sort of acid, toss the whole thing to mix well and serve it to an American consumer who suspects nothing but ends up poisoned by a food for thought that is more a dish of demagoguery than a buffet of knowledge.

Now comes the Jewish whining as it is exemplified by the expression: “What have you done for me lately?” To pave the way for that, Clifford May does something very Jewish; he serves the reader with a hefty dose of moral syphilism at the start of the discussion. Thus, he mentions a few regrettable incidents that happened in Muslim countries which pale when compared to the thousands who died in the name of the Revolution, something he pooh poohed as being insignificant. And certainly, those incidents look no worse than a ship of state caught in a stormy sea when compared to the shipwrecks that happened and still do in Europe, Asia and the Americas; when compared to the murderous calamity that is Jewish occupied Palestine.

But believing that he has prepared you well enough to hear what he wants from all this, he gets to say what that is. From Egypt he wants: “to have Westerners in Cairo supporting … civil-society groups, or businessmen and tourists sipping cocktails in hotel bars, or to restrain terrorists from firing missiles at Israel from Egyptian territory.” This, he says, is what he would have wished to hear a member of the Egyptian Parliament named Dardery say but did not. He then digresses for a moment to say something (too ignorant to mention here) about a Jordanian who spoke at the gathering. And he returns to Dardery who had taken the trouble to define the Arabic word Jihad.

Clifford May tells what Dardery said in this regard then adds his own two cents worth: “I waited for him to add something about Jihad as defined by Osama bin Laden … or Ayatollah Khomeini...” So you ask, how could Dardery have known that a Jewish asshole was sitting in the audience waiting to hear him say something about Bin Laden or Khomeini? And why did the asshole not ask if he burned with the desire to know the answer?

Based on this and this alone, he concludes: “The Arab Spring was a mirage. The Nahda is a reality … Journalists, diplomats, and academics might understand all this if they were relying less on optimism and more on analysis.” But the trouble is that he did no analysis of his own; he only frothed at the mouth all the garbage that was puked by other assholes like himself.

And so, to help him understand what he has been frothing about, let me analyze his garbage. On the matter of Westerners supporting civil-society groups, the people who have reviewed this matter understand that gangs have been set-up and are being financed by the two American Parties to operate in foreign countries. These gangs are more toxic to those countries than say, allowing al-Qaeda to operate openly in America. Just ask yourself who in the world would want to be governed by a congress where the members will chase Netanyahu in the corridors of the legislature and beg him: “Next time you come to our capital, please wear me like a condom and I shall protect you from our commander-in-chief.” This happens almost literally in America all the time, but would be a reason somewhere else to turn a legislator into pink slime.

As to the firing that is done by terrorists across the border between Egypt and Israel, the only terrorist state in the World today is Israel. It has killed a number of Egyptians (by accident, they say) and the Egyptians are taking steps to make sure it will never happen again. This is how it should be because everyone has the responsibility to secure their own borders, not rely on the neighbor to secure it for them. Moreover, if there are angry people in Africa who were incited to cause trouble in their own countries and promised to be taken to Israel where they will live the good life but were double crossed by their Israeli handlers – it is Israel's responsibility to address this anger and to contain it, not Egypt's responsibility. The Egyptian authorities have only the responsibility to protect their people from Israel and from the activities of the Israelis, not to protect the Israelis from their stupidity and their own doing.

We now come to the Stephen Hayes piece. Knowing how the Yiddish mentality operates in America, we easily detect its contagious effect on American thought as it is apparent in the Hayes article. Here too, we see that the piece is a lamentation. Speaking of the Americans and the Iranians getting together to talk, he says this: “their short-term goal is the same: to avoid military confrontation … So an agreement of some kind seems likely.” This is a bad thing, he says, because Iran is hostile. And this phraseology is the softer, gentler way to say that Iran is evil; that the regime governing it must be destroyed – through war, of course. But sadly, he goes on to lament, a war is not what Barack Obama wants at this time because it would complicate his re-election. You see, lamentation happens when cynicism is coupled with a sense of helplessness.

From this point on, Hayes dresses up a whole catalog of “underreported stories” about Iranian mischief committed against the United Stated of America without apparently a single response being initiated by America to defend itself or to push back, if only a little. It is as if America were Mother Theresa, and Iran were a “hooded” punk that is running around, distracting her, threatening her, pissing on her shoes, pulling her robe, messing up her head-cover and hair – and all she does is finger the rosary while praying to God that despite all this, his soul will be saved in the end. And you're tempted to say: Go to hell, kid. But you don't say it to Iran; you say it to Stephen Hayes.

He ends the article by lamenting once more; this time about an international community that lacks the interest to hold Iran accountable for what it does which, he says, are acts of war. Now, my dear reader, concentrate on the expression “international community” and keep reading the paragraph till you hit this: “But the real world doesn't work that way.” Now scream: But who is the real world if not the international community? Is it Israel alone? Is this your real world, Stephen boy? Do you mean to say that Israel and your Jewish bosses are all there is to the world? How does that work? Can you explain? Will you explain?

Some Employ But Others Deploy

Who are the rich and what do they do with their money? This is a sample of the questions that have preoccupied us, human beings, since our cave dwelling ancestors started to bring home the wild boar with bacon inside it. Things have changed a great deal since then because wealth is no longer measured by what we see only; it is measured by a host of other sticks -- many of which are invisible to the naked eye. In fact, there are people who possess enough wealth to decorate a whole city if they so wish; and yet they choose to live so modestly as to appear average. It is that in today's world, wealth is stashed in bank accounts and kept in portfolios that contain securities, promissory notes and certificates -- all attesting to the ownership of properties such as real estate, precious stones and precious metals, private companies and what have you.

There are many reasons why and how some people get wealthy and other people don't; why and how some people lose their wealth and other people don't. But this is not what I choose to discuss in this presentation. Rather, it is how the people who have money under their control deploy it -- whether it is their own money or it is other people's money. And what I emphasize here is the extent to which these people make the wealth contribute to the employment of other people.

There are two basic ways to possess wealth in the modern world: either you own equity which gives you a return on your investment, or you own debt which is the money you lend to someone in return for the interest they pay you. When you own equity, you own all or a portion of an institution that creates wealth, preserves it or enhances it.

For example, a farm, a mine, a factory or a utility make the sort of tangible goods we use in our daily lives. Other enterprises such as a department store, a restaurant or a beauty salon perform the kind of services that we all need at one time or another.

As to the institutions that preserve wealth, there is the entire system of health -- ranging from the small clinic to the large hospital -- where human beings (most valuable resource) are made to feel better and kept alive. There is also the hospice where people who are down on their luck -- temporarily or permanently -- are looked after. And there are the firefighters, the police, the coast guard and the military that maintain order and save lives. And to run all this, there is the government in all its three branches: the legislative, the executive and the legal.

As to the institutions that develop the human resources, there are the schools, the universities, the laboratories, the various training centers, the clubs and so on.

When it comes to investing in debt as opposed to equity, you can lend your money to a government -- from the municipal to the federal -- or you can lend it to corporations or you can lend it to individuals.

People who have some level of sophistication in the field of investment prefer to maintain a balanced portfolio. This means they invest (deploy their money) in both equity and debt. In general, these people would have enough of it to be in both types of investment at the same time. But there are also people who invest in only one type or the other. They would be the people who have a narrow purpose they wish to fulfill or the people who have a mandate to invest the money put under their control in a prescribed way.

The crucial point I wish to accentuate here is that the relationship you develop with your investment will differ markedly depending on whether you invest in equity or you invest in debt. And the consequence is that your view of the economy will also differ dramatically. It is that when you invest in equity, you deploy your wealth in the institutions that employ the people who create the wealth. Sooner or later, you will come to realize what Henry Ford realized long ago; and this is that your employees are also your customers. Thus, if you want to sell what you produce, you must pay your employees enough so that they may afford to buy the products they make. This being the case, you also want the other employers to do the same with their employees. When this happens, you will sell your products to these employees as well; while your own will be buying their products. This means in the end that you and all the people who invest in equity will instinctively wish to see a thriving economy because it is in your interest.

On the other hand, if you invest in debt, you only worry about the solvency of your client. He could be in a business that does well in an economy that is thriving or he could be in a business that does well in an economy that is slumping. As long as he can pay you the interest, and as long as you expect him to return the principal when the time will come, you will be eager to do business with him. But there is more to it than that because if your investment in debt is safe at a time when the economy is slumping, you have the best of both worlds and have many opportunities open to you. It is that you will have the money to pluck assets in distress at a fire-sale price with the zest of a vulture that swoops down on a wounded prey.

The lenders of money and the business vultures call themselves capitalists. Maybe they are in the sense that they own some capital. But they are not capitalists in the sense of the word as it was originally defined -- and this is because they do not create wealth. These people do not make goods of any sort, and neither do they produce the kind of service that would be useful to someone. What they do is use (as a medium of exchange) goods made by other people, and they produce a type of service that is self-serving and nothing more. The truth is that these people are wired so differently from the entrepreneurs who create wealth, and their talent is so different that they can never adapt themselves to create real wealth even when they try. If and when they do try, the chances are that they will succumb to the temptation of exploiting the opportunities blowing their way and they will take advantage of the misery inflicted on other people. It is in their DNA.

For example, if a vulture who calls himself a capitalist buys a factory or any enterprise in distress, the chances are that he will not retool it to make it work more efficiently as he would say; he will fire many or all of its employees, break the company into small parts and sell these to the highest bidder. In the end, he will make a profit that is big or small not because he created something that was not there but because he destroyed something that was there but is no more. The net result is that he will have added to his wealth by subtracting something from someone else – from a number of other people. And the subtraction will be not just a little wealth; it will be to deprive these people of a job and deprive them of the ability to provide for their families. If you want to call this capitalism; call it the dark side of capitalism.

So then, how do the self-described capitalists hide or whitewash the dark side of their activities? They do it by accusing the people who criticize them of envy even when those who criticize are as wealthy as they, but have made their wealth by producing the sort of goods and services that society actually needs, is willing to buy and gladly pays for. If you look closely, you will find that the phony capitalists who used to score with their phony arguments are being unmasked, and they are gradually losing credibility among the general public.

As to the lenders of money, the methods they employ to add to their wealth are no less wretched. To get a deep understanding of this, we need to remember a few fundamentals relating to fiat money. For many thousands of years, the ancestors who brought the bacon home inside a wild boar bartered some of it with a neighbor for maybe an apple or a shell full of honey. Eventually these early people settled down to farm the land and domesticate the animals, a move that increased their wealth tremendously. Thus, the wealth they had was no longer restricted to what they consumed on a daily basis; it was something that had a “stored” value.

To reflect this new reality, our ancestors picked precious metals such as gold and silver, stored in them a nominal value and used them as a medium of exchange. This meant, they no longer had to exchange the liver of a boar for an apple because they could exchanged either of them for a piece of metal and vice versa. The convenience of this innovation was that they could now carry with them a small piece of metal to represent as much as a herd of sheep or a basketful of apples or a beehive.

Life developed further, and wealth increased so much more -- especially in the wake of the Industrial Revolution – that the precious metals proved to be insufficient to reflect the stored value of all the services produced on a daily basis, and all the goods in both the durable and non-durable categories. This reality necessitated the creation of another medium of exchange called paper money. It was also given the name fiat money which is a good thing because the exchange is now done not only with paper but also plastic cards and electronic transfers.

What is important to know is that a Central Bank in each jurisdiction has the task of “printing” and distributing this fiat money, which it does to designated commercial banks and other similar institutions. The Central Bank operates according to rules that are supposed to protect society and the economic system itself from fraud. The integrity of its operation is absolutely essential because someone who produces not even a grain of wheat could -- by a simple trick -- acquire enough fiat money to buy a silo full of wheat, an orchard of apples and a factory processing honey. This is a huge problem but the truth is that no system can be fully protected from someone determined to game it. And gaming the system happens all the time despite the punishment because the temptation to get rich quick is a powerful inducement.

Thus, it happens that the institutions through which the Central Bank distributes fiat money have become the centers of corruption where all sorts of schemes are hatched to game the economic system and give silos upon silos of wealth to people who are skilled in the art of playing games but do not have the IQ to produce a grain of wealth outside the cocoon in which they operate. In doing what they do, these people create mini bubbles that end up fusing together to become a giant bubble. This bubble then implodes and takes with it the whole economy, an event that results in tremendous hardship being inflicted on just about everyone. And believe it or not, they have the temerity to call this capitalism.

To understand how the game is played, we need to know that for the Central Bank to allow the granting of money to an individual or a corporation there must be a request to borrow. Such request is not made directly to the Central Bank but to an institution such as a commercial bank or a brokerage firm. These institutions are supposed to verify that the borrower has a good chance to repay the loan before they approve it. The trouble is that they can be corrupted, and thus fail to do the proper verification. This results in an increasing amount of money being borrowed and being used to buy a fixed amount of assets. What happens, therefore, is that the price of these assets inflates and thus creates the dreaded bubble. Those who know what is happening – and they are the lenders – sell first and trigger the general panic to sell. The bubble is pricked and the economy as a whole gets to suffer in consequence.

Like the vultures, the lenders of money are prone to creating services that are entirely self-serving. Like them, they call themselves capitalists. Like them, they call the people who criticize them envious. And like them, they are gradually losing credibility among the general public.

Sooner or later there will be such an outcry to reform the system that no one will be able to resist. And true reform will come at long last. Am I dreaming?

Bad Goggles Corrupting A Good Writer

Every language I speak and every language I used to speak but have now forgotten feature a saying that goes something like this: You are looking at the world through colored glass. The saying is meant to convey the idea that what we see depends on the color of the glass we hold to our eyes. We may see the world as a rosy, carefree and joyous place or we may see it as a dark, scary and threatening place or we may see it as something between the two extremes. Of course, this is a metaphor to convey the notion that the frame of mind with which we live, plays a role akin to the goggles we may wear. An outcome of this notion is that people who are subjected to intense pressure can develop a frame of mind that will distort their vision of reality.

And so it is with Victor Davis Hanson who is a skillful writer but seems to wear glasses that impact negatively on his talent. He wrote an essay titled: “Iran's win, win, win Bomb” which was published on April 3, 2012 in the National Review Online. The essay also has a subtitle that summarizes the author's point of view. It is this: “Nuclear capability and feigned lunacy are a winning combo for a rogue regime.” But there is more to the essay than just that, including what I consider to be pivotal points of reference. I call them by this name because when modified a little, such points can make a big difference in the way that the beholder perceives the world. This being the case, a small tweaking of the facts by a propaganda machine can so impress the opinion makers of a nation and its political leaders as to influence their decisions and change the course of history.

The good thing about Hanson's essay is that he says at the very beginning how he views the subject he is writing about, and why he views it the way he does. Thus, he makes it clear that he believes Iran is enriching uranium in order to obtain a weapon, and that negotiations will not persuade it to give up trying. He adds that things are the way they are because they have to do with Iran's way of thinking. Simply put, nuclear-weapons capability has no downside and anyone who says otherwise is a liar, says the author. He then goes on to debunk a number of the reasons that diplomats usually cite to show the downside of having such capability. And this leads him to conclude that Iran will someday have the bomb; and he can think of no one who is able to deter it or that will be willing to try.

Another good thing about this essay is that it is put together with artistic flair. In fact, if it were a stage play, all of the above would constitute act one of a story in three acts. To see what this does, it is useful to remember that a well written drama is made of acts that are self contained in the sense that each can stand on its own as a block. This means, there has to be a break between one act and the other at the point where the curtain is slated to come down. And there has to be the feel of a change in direction when the curtain rises again at the start of the next act. But being part of a complete play, the acts depend on each other to tell the full story. This makes it imperative to maintain continuity from the beginning of the first act to the end of the last act. The challenge for the writer, therefore, is to make the action flow naturally and flawlessly from act to act to act despite the breaks between them and the changes in direction at the start of each act.

Thus, we see a break at the end of what can be considered act one of the story told in the Hanson essay. The writer then starts act two by hitting the reader with a change of direction that could not have been expected, but a change that still blends naturally and flawlessly with the rest of the storyline. This is how he does it: “Once a rogue regime has the bomb, it seems immune from foreign decapitation.” You see here the change in direction, and you also see how a skillful writer accomplishes a number of tasks with a single sentence. He establishes the character of the regime as being rogue, the hints that someone will want to decapitate it and he predicts that the regime will remain immune from that fate. Also, having started the sentence in general terms: “Once a rogue regime,” he tells the reader that there exist other such regimes. And this opens the door for him to tell what happened to other actors who lived through somewhat similar circumstances but met different fates. They are Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq, Syria, and Libya.

And this is where I get the feel that the goggles he is wearing are the wrong ones. It is that I see him try hard to accomplish a number of things but fails despite his great skills. Here is one bad entry: “We fought two wars against Iraq only because Saddam Hussein's nuclear-enrichment plant had been blown up earlier by the Israelis.” No, this is not true. In fact, it is absolutely false. The Americans fought the first Iraq war because they were hired by the Saudis and were paid to do a job. They fought the second Iraq war because the W in the White House was told he can better his father by “finishing” the job that the father started but failed to complete. It was to go all the way to Baghdad, which is what he did.

Moreover, Iraq never had a nuclear-enrichment plant and did not want one. What the nation was doing at the time was construct a civilian nuclear power station -- and this is what Israel bombed; a harmless commercial civilian enterprise. The mentality of World Jewry was then (as it is today) that no one in the Middle East but Israel should accumulate sufficient knowledge in the nuclear field that they can become a rival to Israel and be a threat. Thus, it was not the power station as such that they feared, it was the knowledge that would accrue to the Iraqis as a result of having it.

Also, the Americans believed – or so they stated, perhaps to deceive the world – that Saddam had WMD including nuclear bombs when they attacked him the second time. In fact, this was the reason that the W gave several times for attacking Iraq. The American military also thought that Saddam had shells tipped with radio active material, and they warned him not to use them or they will vaporize Baghdad if he did. The point is that the W would have attacked Iraq anyway which means that the claim America attacked because Israel bombed the nuclear station is a lie that someone of Hanson's caliber would have known it is. Thus, we must conclude that he lied deliberately and the question is why? The answer is that he wears bad goggles; and they are showing him a scary picture he is not talking about. What he fears is not the bomb, something he later admits in a passage that can be summarized like this: “Nuclear weapons instill fear not because one bomb is more lethal than napalm but because it could be. Today we talk of Hiroshima, not of the firebombing of Tokyo which killed more thousands.” Rather, what scares him is the religion of Islam, something he does not admit in this essay.

Hanson makes the same point about Syria but here again, you can see the fallacy of his proposition when you realize that the reason why no one has tried to intervene in the current civil war of that country is not the fear that it may have nuclear weapons but the fact that it has a powerful military which is armed with conventional weapons including a sophisticated air defense system. Even if what Israel bombed in Syria were a nuclear reactor, it would be the first time that this country had ventured in the nuclear field. If so, how long would it have taken the Syrians to produce a nuclear weapon? Considering that Syria is viewed as being way inferior to Iran whose effort in the nuclear field goes back three decades -- and has not yet produced the bomb -- to think that Syria was an immediate threat is pure absurdity. What can be concluded from all of this is that the Jewish propaganda machine in America has distorted reality so badly that a skillful writer was made to produce an essay that is technically well put together, but an essay whose historical content is mutilated in the Jewish style. It is said about computers: garbage in, garbage out. It can be said about human beings: BS in, BS out. And when it comes to writing history, no BS stinks more than the Jewish BS.

Sensing that he cannot get away with this much falsehoods without explanation, the writer tries to justify what he has done by impugning evil motives to the actors he has described. And the main motivation he advances is that: “Nukes are often hailed as proof of national prestige.” He gives the example of Dr. Khan whom, he says, is still a hero in Pakistan. Well, Einstein is still a hero to many people decades after his death not because his work suggested how to build the atom bomb but because he was a good scientist. Another example that Hanson gives is this one: “North Koreans are daily reminded how the world comes to Pyongyang's nuclear doorsteps with gifts.” But the fact is that no one has sent a smidgen of a gift since Pyongyang detonated an atom bomb. Hanson gives a third and lengthy example – this one about Iran – in which he makes several points; all of which being the sort of speculation you would attribute to someone you consider to be evil. In fact, it is what the Jewish propaganda machine has been spewing for decades; a reason why not to repeat them here.

The writer then breaks to get to the third act, at the start of which he takes a new direction like a well written drama does. He begins the act like this: “Rarely do intelligence services ever discover another nation's nuclear timetable.” What he tries to do here is reinforce an idea that was put out long ago, but one that nobody mentions openly because it is a horrifying principle to uphold. It can be put succinctly like this: “If you suspect but you're not sure, bomb anyway and claim self-defense.” And he gives several examples about Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa and Israel having eluded the “West”, having shocked it with a nuclear explosion or having left it in the dark as to whether or not they set one off.

And then the inevitable happens. The bad content of the drama overwhelms its good form and causes the collapse of the third act. Heartbreaking. You realize it when you ask this question: If the author believes in what he wrote up to this point, how could he have been so certain that Israel had the correct information when it bombed something in Iraq and something in Syria? Could it be that these were the sort of mistakes which added to the reasons why Israel is the pariah that it is in the eyes of the world? Does he, as an American, want the same fate for his country? Puzzled, you scratch your head and ask why he is doing this -- and the answer dawns on you. It is this: By the time he had reached this point, the writer must have been mentally exhausted.

You hit on this idea when you look at the opening sentence of the third act once again, and you see that it begins with the word “rarely” followed three words later by “ever”. Depending on how much rarity you ascribe to the word rarely, when you twin it with the word ever, you get either a contradiction or a redundancy. This tells you that the writer was mentally worn out by now; but it also warns you that the rest of the article will inevitably prove to be shoddy. In fact, you find it to be a compilation of old clichés, and the idle sputtering of the Jewish propaganda machine.

One idle sputtering is this: “The sad truth is that nuclear capability and feigned lunacy are a winning combo.” He gives false examples about Pakistan and North Korea when in fact; this is vintage Jewish game that only Israel has played. You see this as the secrets of the 1973 war slowly come to light. A picture is emerging about the Israelis advising President Nixon that they had a dirty nuclear bomb. They threatened that if he did not rescue them from the Egyptian advance in the Sinai, they will drop the bomb in Lake Nasser behind the Aswan Dam which will poison the Nile waters for years to come and threaten the entire civilian population. This would have been the fulfillment of the age old Jewish dream of plaguing Egypt as they still imagine has been God's promise to them. Be that as it may, the Jewish lunacy is not restricted to ancient history; it continues to this day with Israel threatening President Obama to ruin his chances at being reelected by bombing Iran if he did not order his military to do it for them.

The trouble is that if you are a writer and you start talking like this, you plunge into a cesspool of stink from which you find it difficult to come out. Everything you write after that becomes the kind of stuff which is only good for the toilet. What you do is speculate about what will happen, and you write about it with the certainty of a prophet. In short, you find yourself mouth-crapping loads of Netanyahu shit like this one: “As long as … Iran can convince the United States it would … lose Teheran in return for taking out San Francisco … the money will start flowing.” The fact is that Teheran does not need money from America; it has enough resources to lend money to needy America if China decided to end the practice. And when it comes to dressing up the cost and benefits of war, Israel is the country that advertizes how many people it is willing to lose in return for the pleasure of attacking someone.

Hanson ends the essay by saying that Iran will get the bomb if it is not preempted which is his way to suggest that it should be preempted.

All I can say is too bad this much talent was used to produce crap and little else. My advice is this: Change those goggles, Vic, and join the civilized world.

Phantasmagoria To Blow The Mind

The first time that the Americans became conscious of the fact they are a polarized nation was during the election campaign that ended in George W. Bush taking office in the year 2001. What they have not come to grips with is that they did not get polarized overnight; they built up to this state over a long period of time not knowing what was happening to them or why. What happened, in fact, was not the natural progression of an evolutionary process; it was the deliberate doing of those who thrive by the conflict they create among other people.

You encounter individuals like these in every club and every office; in every neighborhood and every clan. But if this is all there is to it, the damage that these individuals may cause is restricted to the club, the office the neighborhood or the clan. However, if the malefactor is not just an individual but a culture that brings together a sufficient number of individuals all bent on transforming society, things will turn out very differently. The truth is that such culture will have both the wherewithal to transform the society in which it is injected and the will to exploit it. This, in fact, is what happened to America. It was done to it by a culture that caused it considerable damage and threatened the world in the process. The sad part is that the process is still ongoing full blast.

The offending culture adheres to a philosophy of life you may call Judeo-Yiddish. It was concocted in Europe at the start of the Third Century AD by a group of rabbi seeking wealth, power and influence. What they put together had faint roots in the mores of the ancient Hebrew tribes whose members adhered to a vanishing religion called Jewish. For this reason, the followers of the Judeo-Yiddish concoction still call themselves Jews and thus enjoy the protection that America extends to all religions. Being masters of ambiguity, however, these fabricated “Jews” have also managed to portray themselves as a multiracial group that is nevertheless ethnically homogeneous. Try to figure this one out. But, believe it or not, they have asked for and were granted extra privileges in gullible America because of their out-of-this-world classification.

Kicked out of Palestine which they stole once before, the people who started it all went to settle in Europe before coming to America. They found Europe to be a vast continent inside of which they remained a small community. To influence their surroundings at a level disproportionate to their size, the rabbis dug up the worst tools they could find in the ancient mores of the Hebrew tribes and used them against the Europeans who had no way of knowing what they were facing or what hit them. The preferred tool of the rabbis was the principle of “divide and conquer” which they used to seed discord everywhere they went and thus make headway in all spheres of European life. They created polarization among the people, the neighborhoods and the clans -- acts that allowed then to play one side against the other, exploit all sides and reap the benefits. Ever since that time and to this day, the Jewish leaders have been perfecting the techniques they still use everywhere they go.

They used the techniques in America, and they still do with devastating effect. First, they weakened the fabric of society by replacing the solemn with the trivial in the name of “lightening things up”. Then they tackled the cultural vehicles of the nation such as the entertainment and publishing industries, the media outlets and the venues where they got in whether or not they had talent. They managed to do so by crying discrimination and threatening to sue. Once in, however, they dealt only with their own kind -- hiring them, promoting them, quoting them and cooperating with them at the exclusion of most everyone else, especially those who would not toe the line. This done, the Jewish leaders moved to control the political system which they did with ease having control of the media and the means to demagogue the individuals who refused to genuflect to them, kiss their rings and lick their boots. Sadly, this is the state in which you find the American political apparatus today.

Where does that get them? Well, they now have a superpower to use as a platform out of which they can scheme to realize the age old dream of controlling the world. Viewed from any perspective, a scheme like this would be madness, of course, but they knew they could try because they had a pliant political system to play with and the cultural tools by which to manipulate the events. Thus, they could “normalize” madness in America and make it the acceptable norm by injecting hysteria into the society, and make it the everyday, normal state of affairs. The result has been that while the nation is going bankrupt -- being engaged in two hot wars and several cold ones – you still see the opportunistic rats get in line to genuflect, kiss a ring and lick a boot as they mumble the refrain: They will come to kill us; let's go bomb them instead and plan to bomb them for ever and ever.

The question now is this: how do they do it? The answer is that they create a bogeyman, call it Islam (radical, extreme, political or fundamental), attribute extraordinary powers to it and accuse it of planning to kill all those who will refuse to genuflect to it, kiss its ring and lick its boots. This done, the Jewish leaders call on the American people and the American leaders to arm themselves and arm the country to the teeth, attack Islam preemptively and prepare to engage it in a drawn out battle that will last till the enemy is wiped off the face of the Earth. But this is a tall order that will require proof to be convincing, say the people who still have the independence to think for themselves and the courage to stand up to the Jewish masters.

There is proof, says the Jew, and he submits two recent documents that will eventually be added to the many flimsy proofs already littering the historical record. One submission is made by Daniel Pipes in National Review Online, published on April 3, 2012 under the title: “It's Not Road Rage, It's Terrorism” and having the subtitle: “Ignoring the religious and ideological roots of Islamist violence carries a heavy price.” Another submission is a letter to the editor written by the former mayor of New York City, Edward Koch, and published in the New York Times on April 4, 2012 under the title: “Rock Throwing by Arabs”.

The point made by Daniel Pipes is that there is a recurring problem which, he says, the politicians, the law enforcement and the press have with Islamist terrorism. It is “their unwillingness to stare it in the face and ascribe murder to it.” In fact, he takes more than half the article to describe a series of events which he says, prove that an act committed years ago and was called an act of road rage – for which the culprit was sentenced to 141 years in prison -- but was then reclassified as an act of terrorism. Pipes also mentions another incident; one that happened in the French city of Toulouse where it was thought that the culprit was a Neo-Nazi but then proved to be a French-born Muslim. This culprit was killed in a shoot-out with the police but this too does not seem to satisfy Pipes who does not venture to say what else could have been done to punish a dead body.

The author then does something you can ascribe to Jews and only the Jews because you can never go wrong ascribing it to them and only to them. What he does is rape history, ejaculate a load of Yiddish moral syphilism into it and mutilates it. Look what happened, the claim was to the effect that the war being waged by America was a war on terrorism and not a war on the Muslim religion. It was further explained that the war was made necessary by what happened in 2001 when 19 Muslim kids attacked America on 9/11. But it was later shown that America had launched a cruise missile at a hotel in Baghdad at the very moment that the hotel was hosting a Muslim Conference. This revelation gave credence to the argument that the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, followed by the 2001 attack on it, were motivated by America's own doing and in response to it. Thus, it was argued that despite the denials, the war of America on Islam does exist, and it was started long before it was disguised as a war on terrorism.

To respond to the new argument, Daniel Pipes mounts an intellectual phantasmagoria massive enough to blow the mind. He says that the example which was first classified as road rage, and the one that was first thought to be the work of a neo-Nazi “fit a much larger pattern … that I trace as far back as the 1990 assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane...” He never mentioned this theory before, and he does not explain it now; he simply states it. But it is clear to any astute observer that the author came up with it just now because it occurred to him that he can make hay, and that he can add to the confusion by ending the article with a newly minted opinion, tailor-made for the occasion. Here it is: “not thoroughly investigating the Kahane assassination meant overlooking materials that could have prevented the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.” This is so very syphilitic and so very Jewish.

In any case, he has a paragraph before the last in which he says this: “Most disturbing is the tendency to ascribe Islamist terror to diminished mental capacity..” He then quotes someone who said that Muslims evade punishment by pleading insanity or mental incompetence. This being the central thesis of his presentation, you look for it in the two examples he discusses but find that one culprit was sentenced to 141 years in prison and the other was shot dead. Is this evading punishment? You wonder what kind of writer this guy is. But you still find him lamenting: “...indeed, defense lawyers routinely attribute acts of jihadi murder to insanity.” And so you ask him: Where is the beef, Danny Boy? And you ask yourself: If this is not the manifestation of insanity, what is?

What Pipes is trying to accomplish with this phantasmagoria is show that there is a direct nexus between Islam and violence without there being a diminished mental capacity coming between the two. It is as if he was saying that Muslims who are subjected to mental or physical torture cannot be broken or enfeebled mentally. It must be that in his eyes, all Muslims are superhuman beings who can withstand a pressure of any intensity, and still function normally. This is absurd, of course, but even more absurd would be to believe that there is nothing behind him or behind the people who push this sort of ideas as strenuously as they do.

Look closely and you will discover that these people are simultaneously whipping up the anti-Muslim hysteria on this continent – hysteria being recognized as a form of insanity. We already saw a flight attendant and a pilot break down believing that the planes on which they serve were going to crash, a belief that prompted them to mutter the sermons they often hear from pastors on television and hear in private. And this phenomenon can only suggest that there are other people close to the breaking point but are not showing it or are showing it in a different form such as fly a plane while drunk or being under the influence of another kind. And this reality jibes with the mistaken belief that it is possible for the American soldiers who go to war to suffer mental traumas but not for the Muslims who are subjected to the same war, be they warriors or be they civilians living in places like Afghanistan, Iraq or Palestine.

What can Daniel Pipes or the Jewish organizations that think like him do with any of this? In fact, we already see what they are doing. Here is one idea: If the enemy is always portrayed as being deliberate and calculating in what he does, and if it is okay for America to do the things that would be called insane if they were done by someone else, the Jews will be justified to tell America to do anything crazy they wish to see it do. And the bet is that when this happens, neither they nor America will have to face a push-back by someone because very few, if any at all would bother to stand up and tell the asshole it is an asshole right in its face.

Moreover, several American states have enacted a version of the “stand your ground” law whereby you can kill someone you imagine in your screwed up mind is about to attack you, call this self-defense and walk away like nothing happened. Translated onto the world stage, this form of insanity would give every nation the right to launch a preemptive strike on someone they don't like and claim self-defense. You can see, therefore, that if the religion you follow is blood soaked such as it is in the Jewish bible, you will love a planet that will end up floating in human blood instead of floating in the ether. What Daniel Pipes and his cohorts are doing for America and the world is one and the same thing; it is blood, blood, blood ... blood everywhere.

As to the Ed Koch letter, it was a response to a column written by Tom Friedman in which the latter mentioned the recent Palestinian decision to unwind the escalation that took place between them and the Israelis over the past two generations or so, and go back to the days when they resisted the occupation without the use of firearms. The rock was the only weapon that the Palestinians used against the Jewish settlers who patrolled their towns and villages while armed with machine guns and being protected by the tanks of the Israeli army. At a time when the world was saying to the Israelis that the writing on the wall was telling them to do something before the situation blows up, the North American media were spewing rivers of venom about the terror they said was unleashed on the “young and innocent” Israeli soldiers of occupation in their tanks, and the gun toting “rugged” Jewish settlers who patrolled the occupied lands of Palestine.

The reporting on American television of the situation in Palestine included people in New York being asked their opinion about the rock throwing phenomenon. A few responded with the advice that the Palestinians should be shot on the spot. There were also cries like this one: “It's a pity they throw stones at our soldiers” which other people mocked: “They throw stoooones at our sooooldiers, oh pity me, piteeee meeee.” Too bad there was no social media at the time or this thing would have gone viral. But this was not the whole story because the soldiers and the settlers were not the only people to violate Palestinian territory. Tourists were brought from afar to be shown what Israel did to the heritage of another people. Among the tourists was Ed Koch who was hit by a rock while there. His response was to call the Palestinians the scum of the Earth.

In the end, the inevitable happened and the situation in occupied Palestine blew up as predicted by the world. The result was that thousands of people died on both sides for the sake of an accomplishment that included the immediate termination by the Israeli army of the protection it used to extend to the gun-toting settlers, and to the subsequent evacuation of the Gaza Strip. But now that the Palestinians plan to never again resist the occupation using firearms, and now that people like Tom Friedman are beginning to understand them if not welcome them, you get a thing that walks on two legs, looks human and calls itself Ed Koch opining that the issue boils down to the following: “We may disagree on borders, settlements, refugees or other contentious Arab-Israeli issues. But can't we all agree that in the English language, the terms 'nonviolent' and 'rock throwing' are mutually exclusive?”

This tells you that you can no more teach Ed Koch a concept you cannot teach to a dog. For example, you can teach a dog words like “jump” and “catch” but you cannot teach it a concept like: “When you see me throw the Frisbee in the air, wait till it reaches its expected apogee then jump and catch it on its way down.” And this is why Koch wants to be addressed in simple terms, not in concepts. It is that he could never grasp a situation in which a gang of terrorists from South American backed by the Mexican army invaded the small towns of Texas. It would be impossible for him to understand that patrolling the streets of Texas by such a gang would not be a disagreement about borders, settlements, refugees or other contentious issues; it would be a war that the people of Texas will have the right to resist by throwing rocks at the invaders – and not be called scum of the Earth by a thing that is not worth the poop of a dog.

Shooting a teenager to death who is out to buy candy for his kid brother is a right, say the Jews. But throwing rocks at the soldiers of occupation and the terrorist settlers that they protect makes you a scum of the Earth, according to them. This is the mentality that comes into play when America is asked to embroil itself in a never ending war against the Muslim World.

There are about 60 countries classified as Muslim, and these people will not rest till America has a shooting war with each and every one of them.

Brace yourself, my friend, for this is a mad world already.

I Looked Over And Now Am Puzzled

The reaction I have seen to President Obama's remarks concerning the Supreme Court puzzles me. It shatters everything I have learned about the role that a constitution plays in the affairs of a sovereign nation. No, I am not a constitutional scholar or anything like that, but something happened when I was a teenager that got me interested in the subject. And ever since that time I spent countless hours pursuing my interest, but what I see now tells me it was all for naught. Was it?

It happened sometime in the late Fifties or Early Sixties of the Twentieth Century that I lived in Egypt at a time when that country was going through a transformation of sort. It had given itself a new Constitution, and I still remember President Nasser reading it on the radio. But this is not what motivated me to take up the subject. Rather, it was the teacher I had in the Arabic language class. He had an approach to teaching to which he gave a title that would translate into English as: Reading and Writing. But if I were to translate the title literally, it will have to be: Looking over and composition. This is because in Arabic you go to the library not to read or do research; you go to look over the subject. And you do not write a school assignment; you do a dissertation.

What the teacher had us do was follow the local and world events, pick a subject that may have sparked our curiosity, look it over (research it), compose a dissertation (write about it), then come and read it in class to then face questions from the other students. Impressed with the fact that the President took up the time to read something on the radio, and curious about the subject, I looked up and composed something about the constitution of nations. To this end, I read about the American Constitution among others, and picked up a few things which I pursued further when I came to this Continent and gradually replaced with the English language, the French and the Arabic I grew up with.

What I can say is that I never encountered a conflict in what I learned about the American Constitution until now. I always thought that the separation of powers meant the three branches of the American government were equal. This means that to maintain the separation of powers, one branch cannot compel another to do something or to stop doing it. But for the principle of checks and balances to work and have “teeth,” two branches of government can get together and oblige the third branch to comply with an order. Thus, a bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President can be “struck” by the Supreme Court but cannot be reversed until the Congress or the President reverse their own prior decision and join the Court.

Let us look at two other examples. First, the President can sign a bill containing much of what the nation needs to function normally even if the bill contains a rider inserted inside it by a pressure group. If he does not like that rider, he can refuse to comply with it which would amount to implementing a line item veto that is not specifically provided for in the Constitution. The Congress can then try to impeach the President but he can go to the High Court and argue that the insertion of the rider was unconstitutional, and that it is contrary to the interest of the nation. He signed the bill under duress, so to speak but he will not implement that item. If the Court sides with him, the rider and everyone like it will have been rendered null and void.

Second example, if the President impounds a sum of money that was passed by Congress for a specified purpose, the Congress cannot impeach the President because impounding does not constitute an act of high treason or misdemeanor. Rather, it is a difference of opinion between two equal branches of the government. What the Congress can do is take the case to the Supreme Court and ask for an opinion. The fate of the impounded sum will thus be decided by the branch that wins the case.

As to the President telling the Supreme Court what to do, some of the people who commented on this matter and expressed indignation were lawyers, which is something that puzzles me a great deal. I happen to have read a few decisions written by courts of first instance, even by executive tribunals in which a lone and lowly judge warned the three judges of the Court of Appeal not to overturn his decision because: “I have had the advantage of seeing in person the antagonists and the witnesses which you, esteemed judges of the higher court, will not have.” If these people can talk to their bosses this way, why could not the President who is their equal?

I am puzzled. Please explain.

To Delegate, To Subcontract And Get Screwed

It is one thing to delegate the power to make a few decisions to a co-worker at the office; it is another to delegate the baby sitting of your children to a convicted pedophile out of jail. It is one thing to subcontract some work you do at the firm to another firm; it is another to subcontract the impregnation of your wife to the neighborhood womanizer. Yet, this is exactly the sort of thing that Dennis Ross and David Makovsky are asking America to do in the article they co-authored: “The U.S. can meet Israel halfway on Iran” published in the Washington Post on March 30, 2012.

At a time when the Israelis are weeping lamentation to the effect that they cannot leave decisions relating to their security in the hands of the Americans, they ask America to delegate its own security to them. This is what Ross and Makovsky are advocating on behalf of Israel in the article whose title seems to promise that the pedophile will not fully rape the children but rape them only half the way; and that the womanizer will not fully impregnate the wife but only give her half a pregnancy. The two authors try hard to tell how this can be done in practice, and more than that, they ask the American government to inform the Iranians that the Israeli stud was invited by Uncle Sam himself to half-screw his wife and half-screw his children. Two halves make a full screw, you see – It seems these jokers can count after all.

The two authors then use several paragraphs to prepare the reader psychologically for what is to come, and they unveil a fully developed plan near the end of the article. It is made of four major points, the first three having to do with Uncle Sam calming the nerves of the nervous Jewish stud, and the fourth having to do with Uncle Sam letting the world know who is injecting the family with moral syphilism of the Yiddish kind. But they could not have come to this end had it not been for the beginning of the article where they assert right off the bat that: “There is no daylight between the United States and Israel...” The significance of this lies in the subtle suggestion that because there is no daylight between the two, it follows that to come halfway closer still, will necessarily mean that one must penetrate the other. Now guess who is meant to penetrate who.

This done, Dennis and David find themselves compelled to respond to something out there, something that hinders their ability to proceed with the presentation. It is a series of known facts and the question that flows from them. The facts are that America is keeping Israel alive with food, fuel, finances to build accommodation on stolen land, weapons to kill Palestinians and a veto to protect Israel from a worldwide disgust. The question seeks to clarify where America's interests are to be found in getting closer still to Israel, and getting screwed in the process. No, no, there is no question, say the authors; it is that Obama and Netanyahu: “Both agree that … a nuclear Iran could set off an arms race … why Obama has indicated that the issue is in the 'American national interest.'” The convergence is already here, they add. Oh yes, you sigh, it seems that the screwing of America has already begun.

They now say something inadvertently which clearly demonstrates why it is dangerous to start any type of relationship with these people that is more than arm's length. It is the fact that anything which gets you closer than that is seen by them as being the extension of an umbilical cord connecting Israel to America where the baby gets to control the mother. The old saying was to the effect that if you give them a finger, they will take the arm. It is worse with these people because when you give them a finger, they reach out to the umbilical cord and they pull till they get the arm, the shoulder, the torso and the whole body. This done, they attract the spouse, the children, the extended family, the tribe and the nation. If you're a superpower and your influence extends around world, they will scheme to grab the whole world as well.

How do they do it? There are many approaches to doing it, and our two authors are the most effective at this game because they are the smoothest operators in a world that is full of brash and loud-mouthed Yiddish-cultured retards. Thus, you see Denis and David begin their presentation with a move that puts you at ease, something they accomplish by reiterating that: “The two leaders agree that a peaceful solution … is preferable.” And they go on to assure you that there is really nothing new in what they are about to propose because: “Iran faces sanctions [already] giving diplomacy a chance to succeed in a way that it has not.” This calms your nerves and puts you at ease.

In fact, you are so relaxed by now; it is like being drugged and resting comfortably in a soft bed. But what you thought was a doctor standing nearby to help you, turns out to be a rapist who begins to undress you. This done, he massages you with a surprising revelation about which you can do nothing in your current state. It is that he informs you there is a difference between America and Israel, a difference that stems from a basic reality: “The United States … can afford to wait longer than Israel … From Israel's perspective … there will come a point when … the Iranian nuclear program will force Israel to forgo its military option.” So what? you ask with a feeble voice that is barely audible.

Well, my friend, you made a mistake asking because the answer will most certainly cause you pain in the ass. Here it is: “Forgoing the use of force … would be a historic decision [that] goes against that country's ethos.” Get it? It is all about Israel and its ethos; not about America or its national security or the fact that its people have had it up to here being dragged into foreign wars that serve nothing but the ego of the leaders in Israel and the ego of the henchmen in New York and Washington. And you realize you've been subjected to an indecent assault.

But there is a problem in the fact that the rapist has bitten more than he can chew, so to speak. It is that he did this same thing to so many so often, he is becoming impotent. Lest this truth come out in the open, he wants to do something unusual. While going through the motion of the screw to appear like being a well endowed virile stud, he wants Uncle Sam to do the actual screwing and thus attain the explosive orgasm that will do away with the Iranian nuclear program. To hide this deception, the authors of the article suggest that there be “efforts to synchronize the U.S. and Israeli clocks.” But realizing that this will come as a shocker to the readers, they seek to calm them, and also try to have it both ways – which is how they operate.

They first say what you want to hear: “Israeli military action need not be imminent or inevitable.” Then they mention that Netanyahu put the time frame for military action at between a few weeks and a year or so. And they quickly add that Obama also said the window for diplomacy is closing but there is still space for it to work which makes it that both the United States and Israel have limits. To them, this indicates that there is “more convergence than divergence” in the points of view held by the leaders of the two countries. What can be more reassuring than that, and more inviting for your acceptance of the rape that is about to be committed!

Now that they have Uncle Sam where they want him and have the observer positioned at the best angle from which to witness the deceptive performance, they try to motivate the Uncle enough to get him excited and start the motion. To this end, they give him a political aphrodisiac of the demonic kind. Here it is: “...the issue of Iran's nuclear program is a global responsibility … any military action [will be] a direct consequence of Iran's intransigence …” They are so certain this will work as planned, they start to pull on the umbilical cord: “...it is far more likely that after the strike the world will ... preserve the sanctions … These are crucial if Iran is to be prevented from reconstructing its nuclear program.” Already, they dream of getting to the finger, the arm, the shoulder, the torso, the body, the spouse, the children, the extended family, the tribe, the nation and the whole world -- an old Jewish dream that never gets fulfilled.

They believe they are half-way there by now, and what more they need to do is make sure that the world is absolutely convinced that what it sees is Israel doing the screwing, not America. If you're not convinced of this, my friend, just look at the Yiddish style hubris they throw at you: “With negotiations among Iran and the (P5+1), there is a need to assuage the Israeli fear … Several actions could reconcile the U.S. and Israeli timetables with the ongoing diplomacy.” And this is where they come up with the four points mentioned earlier about Uncle Sam calming the nerves of the Jewish stud and letting the world know who is injecting the family with moral syphilism.

And what would be a Judeo-Yiddish presentation if there were not a blackmail accompanying it! This is how they put it: “The more Israelis feel their views are being taken into account, the more inclined they will be to give diplomacy a chance to work before resorting to force.” In other words, they tell America it must inform the world that Israel is running the show, or Israel will resort to the force it does not have. This is known as the blackmail of eunuchs.

But how do they get to this point? They begin with a lie: “Because Israel is the only country that Iran has repeatedly threatened to 'wipe off the map,' it is reasonable for it to have some input into the objectives and the timetable for progress in negotiations.” But there is nothing reasonable in believing a lie that is known to be a lie even when it is uttered by smooth talking Jews. What is reasonable, even imperative, is that Israel remain off the stage, and that the blabber mouth idiots in New York and Washington -- be they smooth talking or brash – keep quiet. If they don't know what this means, it means shut up so that the negotiations may reach a satisfactory conclusion.

And now comes the obligatory piece of reverse psychology: “Israel should also understand … a strike on Iran is likely to be limited in value if it is not followed by a sustained international sanctions effort...” But this is the pulling on the umbilical cord which is very much a part of the Judeo-Israel character. Having lied to America and to the World about Iran's pronouncements, the two authors make it look – in the name of fairness and balance – that they are forcing Israel to “understand” what in reality is what Israel craves. And this is to see an eternal conflict between the nations, something it can exploit and benefit from now and forever.

Having thrown all of this nonsense at you, they close by repeating the point that is most salient to them in case you got so dizzy, you forgot what it is: “It is possible to synchronize the U.S. and Israel clocks … the better these timetables are aligned, and the more Teheran understands this reality, the more likely the Iranians [will] take advantage of the diplomatic out...”

How dare they do this? you ask. They dare because having used reverse psychology; they believe they have inflicted upon you a kind of moral dyslexia that must have rendered you comfortable seeing the world they just painted upside down.

But the truth is that you do not threaten an ancient civilization and see it capitulate. Threaten the Iranians and they will become more resolute.

The Abnormal Entity In A Normal World

Have you ever imagined what it would be like if there existed a planet made of normal nations inhabited by normal people living normal philosophies of life with the exception of one abnormal entity in which normal looking people live under the rules of an abnormal philosophy of life? Stop imagining, my friend, because there exists one such situation near to us -- it is Earth itself. The normal nations are those which exist now and those that have come and gone; the abnormal entity is the thing they call Israel whose philosophy of life never seems to vanish despite the incentives for it to do so.

Tribal lands, settlements, city states, nations and empires are the sort of entities that still exist on planet Earth or have existed and have gone away. Some have survived almost intact since the beginning of recorded history, some disappeared for a while then came back under a different form, some were swallowed by other entities and some have amalgamated with other entities to form bigger ones. They all adopted mores and philosophies of life that proved useful for the times during which they existed and the places where they stood. When it became clear that an entity had outlived its time, it modified its conduct willingly, was forced to modify it by others or it disappeared never to be heard from again.

The exception has been Rabbinical Judaism, a philosophy of life whose premise is that if you convert to it and adhere to its decrees, you will become a member of the chosen few who are deemed to be superior to everyone. Regardless of your race or ethnic background, you will enjoy privileges that no one else enjoys. Well, the result has been that such beliefs gave rise to mores that served to turn the converts into pariahs. Normal people throughout the planet and through time have looked askance at all those who called themselves Jews –whether Rabbinical or not -- and have shunned them. As to the people who were compelled for any reason to live near to them or forge a relationship of sort with them; they ended up hating them. Some people even enjoyed picking on them just to humiliate them.

The shame is that very little of these mundane realities filtered down to our time because history was written solely on the basis of what used to happen to the men and women at the top of the food chain such as kings, queens, heads of the army, heads of powerful religious institutions and the like. This view of history did not leave much by way of evidence as to what else was happening below the upper layers of society. For this reason, some people were able to deny the authenticity of the Protocol of the Elders of Zion, and other people were prompted to deny that the Holocaust ever happened. But the truth is that normally intelligent people, even highly civilized ones, felt it necessary to force the Jew to spit on the floor and lick his own spit just to humiliate him. They also felt that it was perfectly acceptable to make products with the skin of a Jew the way you do with the skin of animals. It is that ordinary people had become used to the idea that to pogrom or to holocaust a Jew was the natural thing to do. But this was the Holocaust, and it was as real as the description of the Jewish character was authentic in the Protocol of the Elders of Zion.

Things have changed during the last few decades in the sense that history began to be written not only as it relates to Nefertiti, Napoleon and Nehru but as it relates to the ordinary people who struggle to feed their families; who get angry, seek revenge, strive to live in dignity, aspire to the little joys of life and have lofty dreams. The fact is that history is leaving to future generations not only a paper trail of sanitized events to study in school but also an audio visual trail that is based on electronics, digital technology and God knows what else will be invented to record authentic and spontaneous history as it happens, and preserve it for posterity. But while authenticity is the hallmark of the way we record history now, you will find that some Jews are using modern technology to glorify themselves and put down everyone else in their quest to control the world. This being the premise of the Protocol of the Elders of Zion, you will find that the negative reality detected in the Jewish character today surpasses by far the negative portrayal of the Jews in the Protocol. You may, in fact, consider the Protocol to have been a document sanitizing the image of Rabbinical Jews.

The sheer number of the people who are mobilized to work for the Jewish causes today, the monstrous volume of the work they do in this regard and the magnitude of the pressure they put on other people to do the bidding for them or suffer the consequences, leave you with no doubt that these people -- be they Jewish or gentile -- are driven not by normal human impulses but abnormal demonic urges. And this begins to explain why it happened that people who were intelligent, normal, and considered to be civilized, felt it was necessary to force the Jew to spit on the floor and lick his spit. Why they felt it was acceptable to make products from the skin of Jews. And why they thought it was natural to pogrom and to holocaust the Jew.

Clifford D. May is one of those who will leave to future generations a trail that will show and tell how much he and people like him were able to plague humanity with a philosophy of life so deformed, you are revolted by the extent of mutilation you see when you look at it. Whatever method you use to try to understand their philosophy of life and try to assess it, you find that they seek to impose weird and dangerous values on friends and foes alike. May's latest work is titled: “Diplomacy and Iran” with a subtitle that reads: “Sanctions (and strength) let our enemies know we are prepared for more talk.” It was published in the National Review Online on March 29, 2012.

Actually he wrote that article to respond to someone else but the debate between these two is not what I take up in this work. Rather, it is the mentality that is displayed by Clifford May -- that which tells ordinary human beings there is something seriously faulty and monumentally calamitous about the way that these people live, work and communicate. This should make you conclude that people throughout history must have felt the same way -- the reason why they wished to humiliate the Jew; to pogrom and holocaust him over and over.

May begins the article by quoting a saying which tells of the wisdom that exists in calling a dog 'nice' till you find a rock to throw at it. It is the analogy he uses to describe the rulers of Iran whom, he says, wish to acquire nuclear weapons so as to escalate the war against Israel, America and the West. He does not say how he knows this but he asserts that there is “them” who are bad and wish to harm “us” who are good. The truth, however, is that Israel was supposed to have been created because the Jews were treated badly in the West and not in Iran. What boggles the mind when you see someone treat reality like this is that these people never bother to tell how they judge that the “antisemitism”, the Inquisition, the pogroms and the Holocaust that were inflicted on Jews in the West translate into the West being good and Iran being bad. It is beyond comprehension because it seems to indicate they like the horror and they abhor being treated well. Go figure.

The author then tries to endear himself to the reader by displaying a sympathy which, on close scrutiny, proves to be a false sympathy because, in effect, he turns reality on its head. He asks who may possess the rocks that can be thrown at the dog, and he answers: “The United States does, but President Obama is not eager to utilize them.” And why is that? Because the “Americans are war-weary” says he, which he explains with apparent sympathy that such sentiment is “understandable.” But this is where the thing is turned on its head. You see, the problem is not that Obama refuses to throw rocks at Iran; the problem is that Obama, along with others, are being kind to the charlatans who convert to Judaism for one purpose only; that of using the past suffering of now dead Jews to cash in on money, and to grab power, influence and control. Thus, if there is something to be understood, it is that there exists a misplaced tolerance towards the charlatans, a tolerance that perpetuates the never ending tragedy of the Jews.

The author then takes a few paragraphs to advance the same old talking points. They are: [A] the Jews are good: “The Israelis would like nothing better than to resolve this conflict diplomatically.” Never mind that no one believes this, least of all himself as it is apparent in his article. [B] The Iranian rulers, and everyone else for that matter, are bad because they: “refuse even to talk with the leaders of the tiny Jewish state.” Never mind that the Israelis are not talking to anyone that may have a claim on them, and they counsel the Americans not to talk to such people either. [C] Obama has recognized the “legitimacy of Israel's concerns.” If only Clifford May would reciprocate by showing due respect for his President. [D] He claims that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons on Obama's watch, “history will not judge him kindly.” This guy has no sense of history because he sees things in black and white not in terms of hard alternatives from which a leader must choose. But Clifford May and the Jewish organizations want us to believe that, all this aside, there still exist powerful incentives and a justification for America to throw rocks at Iran – a metaphor to mean bomb that country.

Having advanced the same old talking points, he now advances the same old conclusions which are nothing less than to call for and to incite the unleashing of a biblical style orgy for endless pain and suffering, for blood and gore. And he does this the old fashioned Jewish way. Having complained that the Iranians refuse to talk to the Israelis, he now tries to make you believe that all of America is siding with Israel: “tough measures produced by the U.S. Congress on a bipartisan basis and signed by Obama.” He goes on to say that these measures are sanctions which, in his words, are only means and not ends.

The end he wants to see is this: “For there to be … success, Iran [must] feel vulnerable … that Americans and Israelis have rocks and are prepared to use them.” But he does not get to this point right away. Instead, he takes a number of paragraphs to say that sanctions, even stiff ones, do not work. They exist, he says, only to create a debate, to help in weakening Iran and “should more kinetic measures be used … it will be vital for sanctions to be in place – and remain in place – during whatever diplomatic palaver may follow.” He is trying to have it both ways, you see.

Having said that sanctions do not work, having then counseled to keep them in place anyway, he now attacks those who advocate diplomacy over the use of sanctions. And this, in fact, is the debate he is having with someone else. I shall thus refrain from pursuing this line, but continue to probe the mentality of Clifford May, and all those who think like him. He says this: “If we want [the] Supreme Leader … and the … Guard Corps to stop doing what they are doing … we have to do more than 'nudge' them. We have to offer them something of great value.” This would be the promise to abstain from launching a war on them. You understand what he is saying? He is saying let's threaten to obliterate them but promise not to do so if they will knuckle under. Can you think of something more Jewish than this? You can't; and this is why people have wanted the Jew to spit on the floor and lick his spit. It is fighting humiliation with humiliation. These people always ask for it and they always get it.

Without saying from where he gets his information, he asserts that the Iranians want “dominance of the Middle East in the short run, and 'a world without America' eventually, with the extermination of Israeli men, women, and children somewhere along the way.” This is an outright lie, and he leaves enough clues on the table to show that he is more than a liar; he is dimwitted too. The truth is that the Iranians only said the world will be better off without Zionism; and they said it in response to all the loose talk about war that was generated by the likes of Clifford May. Nothing in what they said mentioned a world without America, and there was nothing in it about exterminating Israeli men, women and children. For May to associate with America what was associated with Zionism is to show he deliberately fabricated a lie that can easily be unmasked. Yes, the man must be dimwitted but he can also fantasize. Look here; if the future extermination of Jews he predicts comes to pass, the pattern has been that he, and all those like him, will try to claim compensation from oil rich, deep-pocketed Iran. Now you know why these people fantasize about a holocaust that never seems to come their way. Pity them those poor things or tell them to buy a lottery ticket.

Before he ends the article, he takes a paragraph – an infamous one -- to deliver a parting shot so as to disparage the Iranians one last time. But having understood what he tried to do all along, you know what he is trying to do now, and you dismiss it off hand. You reckon that he must have looked in the mirror, has seen the ugliness he represents and has attributed all of it to the Iranians. You thus take the infamous paragraph and you rework it to represent reality as it is on the ground, not the illusion that he and all those like him are creating in the clouds.

Here is the infamous paragraph as it ought to have been written: When conducted between reasonable, peace-loving people, the “art and practice of conducting negotiations” can lead to compromise and the resolution of conflicts. But when dealing with Jewish despots, people who respect only power and see even mercy as weakness, there are no talking cures. Israel's rulers see the World as soft, high-minded, weak-willed, and just plain tired of carrying the burden of having to punish Israel for its numerous crimes. They are convinced the Palestinians will accept what they have considered “unacceptable,” because when you come right down to it, those Palestinians see that the world is allowing the world’s worst butchers -- and the number one terrorist state in all of human history -- to arm themselves with the world’s worst weapons, then ask for more as if there was more to be had. It is that these people are always hungry for more, and you can never appease their hunger.

You now judge for yourself whether the Clifford May version or this one is closer to the truth.