A Ship Of State As Ship Of Fools

In Israel, they talk about having an election in October of this year which would be a year ahead of schedule. If and when this happens, it will probably look like an ordinary exercise in democracy but will be something else in reality. What is important to know is that democracy in Israel is a tool they use on the world stage the way that smoke and mirrors are used in a Broadway show. It is to create the right kind of illusion at the right time to keep the fake narrative of Israel going. In fact, the current government came to power when it became clear to the leaders that America was going to have a new President who will need to be educated in the Judeo-Israeli ritual. This is a practice that is not much different from the ancient sacrifice of children to please the gods. In modern Israel it is the use of American weapons and ammunition to welcome a new American President with the blood of unarmed Palestinians, both children and older folks.

To make the theatrics look authentic, the leaders of Israel needed to remove the Kadima Party which had been in power for some time, and replace it with a Likud Party that was headed by the notorious addict to Palestinian blood -- Benjamin Netanyahu. That was then; what they have now is a situation that is somewhat similar where an election will take place in America in November of this year, an election that may result in a brand new situation. Depending on what happens in America, they will modulate the events in Israel to get the result that will suit the new circumstances while making the whole thing look like coincidence. The way things stand now in Israel is that the Jewish state has managed to make itself isolated from its neighbors and from the world like never before. It is that the people at the helm have behaved so strangely, the people below them have started to speak out. Thus, a conflict was created that needs to be resolved. The denouement of the play will be written depending on how the American campaign will unfold.

We have an indication as to how this may happen when we study the events of four years ago. The idea then was to remove Ehud Olmert from power and call an election that will bring the Likud Party to power. They created a side show to the effect that Olmert had committed a few criminal offenses in the past (no surprise here given that criminal behavior is the natural way of life in Israel) and they said he should call an election then resign and prepare himself to go to jail. Except for the jail part, it all happened as planned when Kadima under a new leader lost the election, and the Likud under Netanyahu won. His first act was to launch an attack on the unarmed people of Gaza and kill 1,300 innocent Palestinians in three weeks which, when scaled to the size of the American population comes to 300,000 dead Americans in three weeks. Thus, even before ascending to the helm of American power, the newly elected President had been baptized in the reality of Judeo-Israeli democracy with the blood of Palestinians being shed with the use of American weapons.

So then, what theatrics are they preparing to stage in Israel at this time? To search for an answer, we begin by noting that the people at the helm of an institution do sometimes lose touch with reality and begin to do such things as to imperil the institution itself and all those in it. In the majority of cases, the big institutions would have a protocol spelled out in their code of conduct by which the lower ranking personnel in the command hierarchy are authorized to take steps that mitigate or neutralize the negative effect of illegal orders issued by the person at the helm. If necessary, that person may even be relieved from command altogether. This can happen in a relatively small institution and it can happen at the national level.

Something close to that happened in America in the year 1973 when the secretary of defense issued a directive to the military instructing them to check with him before obeying an order that may come from the commander in chief. The secretary of defense at the time was James Schlesinger (a Jew), the commander in chief was President Richard Nixon and the occasion was the combination of two major events unfolding simultaneously. At home, there was a Watergate affair raging in the media and in the Congress. Abroad, there was a full scale war raging in the Middle East. Schlesinger had feared that Nixon may go crazy under the strain of the Watergate revelations and do something – well, crazy.

What is known so far is probably as much as we'll ever know about what happened during those crucial days in 1973. There was the fact that America had participated directly in the Middle Eastern war to rescue Israel. And there was the fact that President Nixon had ordered the worldwide mobilization of American forces, something he did apparently based on reports -- never substantiated -- to the effect that the Soviet Union had mobilized its forces in response to the American participation in the war.

As it happened, President Nixon resigned shortly after that, the consequence of which being that the world will never know what the response of the American military to the Schlesinger order had been. It is also doubtful that historians will ever know whether or not Schlesinger or anyone in the military would have been summoned to the White House or to some congressional committee to tell how each one of the participants took the Schlesinger order.

Some people have called the Schlesinger move a mutiny. Of course, the American military, like everyone else, has a protocol to follow when a number of officers deem that a higher ranking commander is no longer fit to command. But Schlesinger never consulted with anyone before issuing his order, and there is no indication that anyone below him took the order seriously. But what if Nixon had issued an order after the Schlesinger directive was given out? Would the chiefs of staff have obeyed it, or would they have checked with Schlesinger?

Very few people in 1973 believed that America was at peril, therefore, the unfolding of those events were of little consequence to the nation. Still, it was a situation that America will never again want to be in regardless as to what pickle Israel will put itself in. By contrast, what is happening in the Middle East at this time looms large in the imagination of Israeli leaders such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the minister of defense Ehud Barack. Opposed to them and worried about what they might do next are Yuval Diskin who was the head of the domestic intelligence agency, Meir Dagan who was the head of the foreign intelligence agency, and General Benny Gantz who is the current chief of staff.

All three believe that the Prime Minister and the minister of defense are approaching the subject of Iran the wrong way. Diskin has said that the two Israeli leaders are messianic in their responses, and that attacking Iran will accelerate the nuclear program of that nation instead of retarding it. Contrasting the messianic leaders of Israel are the leaders of Iran who, according to Gantz, are a very rational people as it is apparent from the way that they govern their country. As to Dagan, he put it succinctly when he said that a military action against Iran is the stupidest idea he ever heard of. Thus, the accusation leveled by the Israeli leaders to the effect that the Iranians are irrational and messianic has been thrown back at the Israeli leaders, not by the Iranians who would not waste their time responding to a barking dog in Tel Aviv, but responded to by second tier commanders in the Israeli hierarchy itself.

Piling on top of the Iranian problem are a few other problems that will play a big role in pushing Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barack over the edge. One of those is the fact that the Israelis need as much as a billion dollars right away to get out of their financial difficulties. They have approached America to bail them out again but even the threat that they will default on the loans endorsed by America could not persuade the Congress to hand them this much money. And you know how dire the situation is when they put out stories to the effect that the girls in Israel are skinny not because they are starving but because they are fashionably anorexic. When presented with the fact that poverty in Israel is a serious problem approaching the level of famine, they blame the shortage of food on the Ethiopian women who, they say, are eating more than their fair share of the available meat, amounts they never ate in Ethiopia before they were brought to Israel.

This tells you that Israel which has been up to now a powder keg full of explosives made in America, has become a ship commanded by irrational and messianic fools who, when they look in the mirror, do not see themselves but see someone else as being irrational and messianic. It is the height of madness.

Watch how the staged play will play itself out but do not be fooled by how the fools will try to mislead you.

Are They Stupid Or Something?

What's wrong with these people? Every time that the thing seems to have quieted down, and you begin to believe that the world is getting back to normal, someone comes up with something more bizarre than before, and you wonder if these people are stupid or something. This time you have not one, not two but three Jewish lawyers -- prominent in the field of human rights, I might add -- demonstrating in black and white that they know as much about human rights as the bird which my neighbor keeps inside a cage. Their demonstration being a testimony to the reality that the human race is still ailing.

If you want to see for yourself why that is, get a hold of an article published in the Wall Street Journal on May 2, 2012 under the title: “Inciting Genocide Is a crime” and the subtitle: “Even if Iran's radicals could be deterred from attacking Israel, their actions are already illegal under international law.” The article is signed by Robert Bernstein and Stuart Robinowitz both of whom are current members of the so-called Advancing Human Rights, and Irwin Cotler who can be seen everywhere in Canada where he should not be, doing everything he should not be doing and failing to do what he is supposed to do.

The three authors begin their article in the typical Jewish fashion of inciting the reader to hate someone they are about to attack with assertions they have no intention of backing with proof. Here it is: “Many of Iran's crimes are well-known to Americans and observers world-wide.” They list a number of what they call crimes then give the reader this follow-up: “Less recognized, however, is the legal significance of Iran's genocidal anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric, which constitutes one of the most serious crimes under international law.” As can be seen, what they complain about is Iran's rhetoric -- nothing more than that. But to counter this rhetoric, they come up with their own rhetoric which is to accuse Iran of committing “serious crimes.” Thus, what we apparently have here is one rhetoric countering another rhetoric.

Now, let us get something clear before going any further. In the balance between free speech and the laws of libel, I can say, for example, that the three lawyers have brains that do not measure up to the brain of my neighbor's bird. What I cannot say without submitting proof is that a test was conducted in a nearby hospital whereby the brains of the lawyers were weighed and were shown to be less massive than that of my neighbor's bird. This would be libelous, therefore criminal.

Let us now suppose that the Iranians did engage in rhetoric injurious to Semites and to Israel. If we reject the notion that two wrongs can make a right, we would have to conclude that the three human right lawyers are as guilty of committing a serious crime as the Iran they accuse of committing serious crimes. What is left for us to do now is weigh the rhetoric of each side, thus determine which of the two is more guilty than the other.

There are two groups of allegations leveled against Iran by the three lawyers. The first group is listed in the first paragraph of the article. It comprises the following: The regime wants to build a nuclear weapon; it supports Syria's Bashar al-Assad; it sponsors terrorism; and it is engaged in domestic repression. The authors do not bother to give any proof of this, and they do not try to expand the discussion. They simply state that these are crimes well known to Americans and to the world. Given that the allegations were stuck in there for the purpose of inciting the reader to hate the Iranians, we dismiss them without further ado for the sake of brevity.

As to the second group of allegations, the lawyers attempt to give proof as to the kind of rhetoric that is used by the Iranians. They mention a website “affiliated with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei” where a declaration of some kind was made. The trouble is that the declaration is reported twice in two different ways in back-to-back sentences. The first reporting is this: “Iran would be justified in killing all Israeli Jews.” The second reporting is this: “...there is 'justification to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel...'” What this says to someone that might be completely detached from the issue is that the Iranian declaration was made in a context that the lawyers are distorting but are not smart enough to do so intelligently.

But to those who have followed the escalating rhetoric between Iran and world Jewry (especially the extremists among American Jews), this is nothing more than Iran's response to the Jewish threat of attacking Iran either by Israel alone or by the combined effort of the Israeli and American militaries. In fact, the rhetoric got so heated at one point that even the mild mannered Secretary of State in America threatened to obliterate Iran. And while it is clear that the Iranian rhetoric reflects a kind of wrestling with the moral issue of having to kill innocent people in the process of defeating Israel's military, the Jewish rhetoric never carries with it a hint that someone regrets what they call “collateral damage.” On the contrary, they describe the death of innocent people as part of the business of conducting a war; or worse, they present it as the fault of the civilian victims who do not leave the scene of combat even if such move were impossible for them to make when there is no time to escape or because the victims have nowhere else to go.

What the three lawyers do after that is throw at the reader the sick joke that used to carry weight but carries weight no more. It is that people used to be hauled to court and tried for denying the Holocaust. Some people even went to jailed for that. I remember a time when the crimes of the Nazis used to stir the emotion even of people who abhorred the Zionist movement. But when the Jewish leaders came up with the notion that to deny the Holocaust is deemed to be crime, they trivialized the Holocaust to such a degree that most people now could not care less about Jews being gassed or cremated or having their skin turned into lampshade. It is just that people have it up to here with being forced to believe in a historical event when they – as Mother Theresa herself – have trouble sometimes believing in the existence of God. Criminalizing the denial of a historical event is now seen as being a stain on the conscience of mankind as bad as the Holocaust itself.

From this point on, the writers formulate a dissertation in which they argue that to incite genocide is recognized in international law as being a crime. They also make the point that to insult Jews by characterizing them as being this or that is a precursor to genocide, therefore a crime as well. It surprises me that Irwin Cotler should sign an article that says such a thing when he is old enough to remember how it was like before the wave of political correctness that swept North America.

He should remember that there was a time when the Arabs were characterized as nonhuman or subhuman: “bloodthirsty, viruses, a metastasizing cancer, mad dogs, wild animals” and so on. Like he and his colleagues are saying, I am inclined to believe that such behavior can lead to genocide but I say so with a caveat. It is that to lead to genocide, you must also have the ability to silence the opposition. In fact, this is what happened here in Canada when I and people like me were silenced and subjected to the cultural genocide of being blacklisted. By contrast, the Jews are more vocal everywhere in the world than anyone else. Because they have the means to respond to every allegation leveled against them, they will not be subjected to genocide even if it is true that the Iranians characterize them as being this or that.

While the Jewish leaders were committing all these horrors in Canada, Irwin Cotler was already a prominent lawyer laboring in the field of human rights or pretending to do so. And yet, he did not lift a finger to put a stop to the Jewish genocide of the Arab character, a genocide that has destroyed many careers I, being the exception that refused to die at the hand of Jewish inhumanity and Jewish treachery. I stayed with it till I had the opportunity to start this website and tell my story.

Like they say it themselves: “Silence is no option.”  Thus, I advise Irwin Cotler to surrender himself to the International Criminal Court and be tried for being silent when crimes were committed against humanity. I say to him: Speak up, Irwin. Speak up against yourself and tell the truth; tell the whole truth.

A Tale Of Two Dogs And Their Achievements

On April 27, 2012 the Earth-bound Wall Street Journal published an editorial under the title: “The Growth deficit” and the subtitle: “The slowest recovery plods along.” I have a few things to say about this editorial but first, I must confess something to you. I am actually not from this Universe but am a time traveler. It means I travel through space and also through time such as the past and the future. This gives me the means to also travel between parallel Universes. In fact, I just came to this Universe from one that closely resembles it but for a few exceptions. It is that the intelligent beings who inhabit one of the planets in that Universe are not two-legged human beings but four legged dogs. And so, to follow what I am about to say, you will have to imagine a planet that looks more like Planet of the Apes than Planet Earth but that is really a Planet of the Dogs.

There is on that planet a country called America where the dogs are preparing to conduct a presidential election. The campaign is in full swing, and the big issue is the record of the challenging dog as it stacks up against the record of the incumbent dog that happens to be the younger of the two. And so, let me tell you this story before I take up the editorial of the Earth-bound Wall Street Journal. Because it would have been impossible for me to go through the full length and width of the nation to gather the relevant information and give you a comprehensive assessment of the situation there, I have assembled a sample of the views expressed by the writers who contribute to the Wall Street Journal of Planet of the Dogs. Here is what they have been saying lately:

In this election year of the dog, it is worth remembering what is often said, mainly that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. If this is true, the implication is that if you have new tricks up your sleeve and you're looking for someone that can deliver on them, you'll be better off getting a young dog and teach it the lessons you have in mind than getting an older dog who may know a few tricks already but cannot learn a new one.

These days, the self-deprecating inhabitants of America think of the economy as having gone to the dogs, and what they want as a society is to avoid being reduced to eating hot dog with a piece of bread and little else, or eating dogs of the tail-wagging kind made into Indonesian stew. For this reason, they have abandoned the idea of placing their dogs onto the roof of the car to head to Canada, preferring instead to stay at home and make a decision as to who they will vote for in the upcoming election. They hope that the decision they make will be the wise one and that it will get them out of the rut very soon. The choice they have is between a challenging old dog who knows a few tricks from his days in the field of tricking the populace, and the incumbent young dog that has learned a few tricks of the trade only recently, has learned them on the job and has done so before their eyes.

The old dog has on his list of accomplishments a history of flipping properties whose glory days had come and gone. They added real value to the American GDP when they produced real goods and real services, but had little value left in them by the time the old dog and his associates had taken them over. The latter cut up the properties into pieces and sold them as scrap, moves that added a bubble-forming phony dollars to the GDP of the nation. And the dogs paid themselves a handsome amount of real dollars to reward themselves for their troubles. At one point, the challenging dog had also used his charm and know-how to trick the government of America into giving him gobs of money to stage an Olympic event that added little value to America but a lot of it to the rest of the world. All in all, that dog spent a lifetime adding perhaps a billion dollars or so of real and phony dollars to the American GDP. And he managed in the process to keep a few million real dollars for himself.

As to the young dog, he came into office at a time when the administration that preceded him had made a mess of America's finances. Standing at the edge of a frightful precipice, the nation was so close to a fall into the abyss of no return that the existing Secretary of the Treasury literally went down on his knees and begged the Lady of the House to pass a bill that would allow the flooding of the market with freshly printed real dollars. The Lady acquiesced to the request thus saved the phony economy which the Secretary of the Treasure and his boss had inflicted on the nation of America, something they did on the advice of the know-nothing devils of ignorance who usually disguise themselves as the all-knowing gods of enlightenment.

Taking over from an administration of fools shortly after that, the young dog started to repair every part of the economy that was damaged by his know-nothing and do-nothing predecessor. He saved the auto industry that was then and still is the backbone of every modern industrial economy, and he called on the traditional industries both in the goods making sectors and the service sectors to return to America, a call that made the businesses respond affirmatively. Yes, the nation is still staggering from the blows delivered to it by a previous administration that spent eight years serving a foreign entity of parasites rather than serve the inhabitants of America. But what must be well understood by everyone is that building an economy is something very different from managing an armed conflict. In fact, when it comes to execution, the two fields are very much the opposites of each other.

The truth is that the top dog in America – also called president -- runs the economy while playing the role of commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He inherits from his predecessor an economy that is like an ocean-going massive ship. It takes long to get the ship going in a given direction and just as long to have it change course. Thus, the mistakes of the predecessor stay with the new dog for a long time after he takes the helm. By contrast, a military situation – especially when there is an ongoing conflict – is where the decisions are made on the spot such as it is described by the proverbial telephone call which comes to the president at three o'clock in the morning.

What all this means is that a bad economy belongs to the administration that planned it years ago, while a military success belongs to the leader who makes the current on-the-spot decisions. The dogs of America understand these realities and this is why they give credit in foreign matters to the current administration while attributing the difficulties of the economy to the previous one. This makes them tolerate an economy that moves forward at a slow pace, and makes them admire the military operations which are conducted by the current commander-in-chief who happens to be the incumbent in the current election season.

Looking at the record of this young dog -- in charge of the nation for more than three years now -- the electors see the experience not of someone who spent a lifetime adding a billion or so phony dollars to the GDP of the nation, but see the experience of someone who spent nearly four years adding something like 50 trillion dollars of real wealth to the GDP of the nation. In addition, they see that the old dog made millions in commission for himself while the young dog made only a couple million in salary and perks for himself and his young family. They conclude that he has the experience needed to maintain the nation on the path of recovery he put it on, having saved the nation from a depression that was staring them in the face.

And so, the Americans now feel that it is better to stick with the devil they know a great deal about and have seen him do good things for the nation, than go with the devil they know very little about except that he wants to make America produce phony wealth by flipping what used to be worth something but is worthless now. In fact, to create new wealth that is real and useful -- the sort of wealth that can replace imported goods -- is so alien a concept to the old dog, he will never learn to do it having spent a lifetime pulling old tricks while the nation was borrowing from abroad to import what it used to make but made no more. And all this was happening because he and other dogs like him had deemed it more advantageous to flip property and make a quick buck rather than create real wealth by producing real goods and real services. This would have been the way of true entrepreneurial capitalism, something that the old dog will never grasp having lived a life of flippant trickeries.

What is at work at this point in time is the reality that those who are well versed in the art of creating phony wealth are also well versed in the art of creating phony narratives to impress the electorate; something they are doing now at full throttle. The phoniest thing you can do while advertising your narrative being to turn reality upside down, this is what the spin doctors who are attached to the campaign of the old dog are doing at this time. They are doing it to snatch the credit from where credit is due and give it to whom it does not belong. Thus, you see them hard at work trying to take away the credit that the young dog has earned with the brilliant snap decisions that he made in military matters. And they try to attribute these successes to the previous administration; one that sat like pieces of furniture in the Oval Office wondering why they are here and not somewhere else. In addition, the spin doctors are trying to shift the blame for the state of the economy from a previous administration that spent eight years deforming it, onto the new administration because they say that the young dog has failed to turn around the ocean going ship with a snap of his finger.

This, my friend, is the story of Planet of the Dogs as told in the Wall Street Journal of the other Universe. Contrast it with the editorial in the Earth-bound Wall Street Journal, and you will see that the Earthlings are neither as smart nor as equitable as the dogs of that other planet. The bone of contention in the America of Earth as described by the Journal is this: “The economy has been growing for 11 quarters since the recession officially ended in mid-2009, and quarterly growth has averaged 2.4%.” And they go on to lament it like this: “That's slower growth than in every modern expansion and about half the growth rate of all the recoveries since World War II...” True but this is not the whole story.

What the editors of the Journal have omitted saying is that since World War II, America was never hit with a blow half as severe as the blow it received in 2008. This was a time when the value of real estate dropped by as much as 30% in many places when it never dropped by as little as 5% on previous occasions. Moreover, many parts of the World who are traditional buyers of American goods and services – Europe being foremost among them – went into depression level declines thus negating to America the advantage it had in the export sectors of the economy. Given the reality of this “perfect storm,” it must be said that America under its young president has done very well given the hand that he was dealt.

And this is why it makes no sense that after analyzing the current situation and having omitted the most crucial part of the argument, the Wall Street Journal should conclude with this: “President Obama … never explained why the Reagan recovery that followed policies [he] rejected was so robust while the current recovery is so anemic.” The fact of the matter is that it is not the job of a sitting president to explain what a previous president did or compare that with what he is himself doing at this time.

Such analysis and comparison would be the job of a journal such as the Wall Street Journal. And what the editors of this Earth-bound journal should be doing instead is follow the example of the writers on the Planet of the Dogs and bark their opinions in a manner that is a little more just and a little more evenhanded.

But Who Will Save The Savior?

There is the expression: Who will police the police? It may be the latest variation on a question that was asked in antiquity -- perhaps as far back as the days of Plato. The expression intones that no matter how good a system you may construct, there will be weak points in it that will cause its demise. This will happen because a system must have a mechanism at its head to oversee its function. But sooner or later the overseeing mechanism itself will go bad, and nothing will be there to oversee the system, to police it or to fix it. And like goes another old saying, the fish will have started to spoil at the head. And this is what gave rise to the question: who will police the police?

So much for the ideas that have reigned supreme during the span of time between antiquity and today, a situation that was different from our current circumstances because what we have now is a new kettle of fish. It is that the world is getting bigger in terms of the number of people it contains but getting smaller in terms of the reach that people have. They communicate together with a simplicity never fathomed before, and they do what they do at such speeds, it would look like magic to people from another era. This being the reality of our new circumstances, it is now clear that what happens anywhere in the world affects everywhere in it. And this has meant for sometime now that someone must be in charge of policing the world.

This idea became apparent less than a century ago when the French were having their ass kicked in Indochina, and the Americans stepped forward to volunteer policing the world. The motive was to show the Vietnamese and their likes how they ought to behave in a world whose image was being shaped inside the head of some “Western” dreamers. What happened, instead, was that the Americans had their own ass kicked because the Vietnamese could do it, and because the Jewish organizations in America helped the Vietnamese in this regard by kicking the ass of the American military at home.

When it was clear that the Vietnam War had become a quagmire, the Jewish leaders made their next move. They got America involved in a number of adventures, this time in the Middle East because it is where the Jewish leaders wanted America to be so as to protect Israel while it expands at the expense of its neighbors. Since the Jews considered Israel to be the world at the center of the universe, they did not refer to what America was doing as policing the world; they referred to it as saving the world. But after it became clear that America's performance in the Middle East was no different from the poor showing it had in Vietnam, people began to worry about America and so they asked: Who will now save the savior?

You would think that the Jews had learned something from that experience but no, they did not because Jews never learn from real situations; they only learn from the way that their leaders spin reality. And what the leaders were spinning at the time amounted to no less than “doubling down” on the failed policies of the past. They saw the necessity to do this because America had itself seen the necessity to retrench and to redeploy its forces. America started to take a fresh look at the Pacific region but the Jewish leaders wanted it to remain in the Middle East. And so, the Jewish leaders decided to use a new approach to persuade America to stay where it is. They reached into their bag of tricks and pulled from it a tool known as flattery.

This is where Dennis Prager comes into the picture. He wrote a book and wrote a column about the book. The column was published in the National Review Online on April 24, 2012 under the flattering title: “Why America Is Still the Best Hope” and the subtitle “We should acknowledge our country's unique values.” As to the book, it was published the same day, under the title: “Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph.” The Prager column was followed two days later in the same publication by “Law Games”, a column written by Clifford May that has the subtitle: “Progressive activists are corrupting the laws of war and putting free nations at increased risk.” When you read the column, you realize that the author does not really fear that the laws will be corrupted, he fears that they will be applied equally to Israel which, in his eyes and the eyes of many Jews, is a sacrilegious thing to do because they consider themselves and Israel to be a world onto themselves; a world that is above the law of man.

I have not read the book, and what I analyze here is merely the writer's column about his book. He begins by telling what the central premise is all about: “There are three big ideas … competing for humanity's allegiance: Leftism, Islamism, and Americanism.” He goes on to say that the American value system is the best one to make a good society. It is itself made of three ideas which he calls the American Trinity. But before telling you what those ideas are, he does something that would be strange for a normal human being to do but is normal for a Jew to do. What he does is blow to smithereens his entire theory as he tries to score more with his argument than the argument can yield for him.

Look what he says: “The problem is that most Americans cannot identify these values, and therefore cannot fight on their behalf.” He also says this: “I do not fault Americans for not knowing their distinctive values. No one taught them what they are.” How long has it been? you ask, and he responds: “...the problem is not new. Even … the World War II generation had not been … taught these values.” If so, what are the consequences? They are these: “...the alternatives, Leftism and Islamism, have been spreading like the proverbial wildfire...” So much for a theory about unique values that no longer exist being the best hope for mankind.

But how is it that he knows about these values when no one else does? Do you really want to know, my friend? Okay, well then get ready for the answer because it is bound to shock you. Here it comes: “...by chance. One night … I stared at the coins … and there they were: “Liberty,” “In God We Trust,” and “E Pluribus Unum” (“From Many, One”). He calls them the American Trinity. Are you surprised that a Jew has seen hope and salvation in money? How shocking would you say that is?

Before you go on to read the rest of the column, you stop to ponder this explosive question: If no one in America – going as far back as before the generation of World War II – has known about the values that make a society good, how come he believes that America is good? Or does he? He does not answer this question but he assures you that no other country has made a proclamation similar to the American Trinity – at least not on their currency. The French may have their own Trinity (liberté, égalité, fraternité) but it is not on the Euro and was never of the Franc. Thus, Prager leaves you with no choice but to conclude that he does not see America as being good, but sees that it only has the potential to be good because it has the Trinity inscribed on its currency – something that no other country has been smart enough to emulate. And he devotes the rest of the column to discussing each part of the American Trinity separately.

As to liberty, he says there is an inverse relationship between the citizen and the government. The bigger the government, the less free the citizen and vice versa. To which you say: Tell it to the Swiss who have both a big government and a free society. As to the locution: “In God We Trust,” he says there is an inverse relationship between a citizen's fear of God and his fear of the State. He adds that the more the citizen fears one, the less he fears the other. And he explains that because America and Europe have become more secular, they became more powerful. To which you say: Tell it to the Taliban who – when in charge of Afghanistan -- injected the fear of the state in the hearts of an already God fearing population. As to the saying: “E Pluribus Unum,” he says everyone in America is made to feel like a fellow American. To which you say: Tell it to those who engage in profiling in New York because they don't seem to have gotten the message.

He ends the article this way: “Americans cannot export values they do not themselves know or believe in. And this is why I have devoted so many years writing Still The Best Hope.” But you ask again: How can America still be the best hope when no one believes in those values anymore? He does not answer but he goes on to say: “Abraham Lincoln was right when he said that America is the 'last best hope of earth.' It was true in 1862. And it is true today.” But 1862 and 2012 are separated by 150 years, and things have changed a great deal in the meantime. Besides, the Africans were enslaved then while the Catholics, the Asians and the Jews were considered to be less than equal. In fact, the Trinity that Abraham Lincoln was referring to was: “Life,” “Liberty,” and “The Pursuit of Happiness,” not the wacky Jewish concoction peddled by Dennis Prager.

This brings us to the Clifford May column. He wrote it in response to Reed Brody, counsel with Human Rights Watch, who wrote a piece in which he argued against the trial of suspects in military tribunals at Guantanamo rather than in civilian courts in America. What galls Clifford May is that Brody said the U.S. “needs a trial that is accepted around the world as a fair search for the truth.” And so, like Prager before him, Clifford May commits a fatal mistake at the start; one that blows his theory to smithereens. Look what he says: “...questions do not appear to interest Brody [who is] seeking to expand the rights of those waging an … illegal war against liberal democracies.”

May's problem is that he cannot accept what people say when they make sense. In fact, what Brody said was that he wants to see a fair search for the truth. What May says in response is that Brody should quit searching for the truth because the truth is that the suspects are waging an illegal war against liberal democracies – something he knows even before it is proven in a court of law. There goes his entire argument in smoke. And this is not all because he goes on to say that to view the suspects as being less than guilty before the trial is to aggressively seek to expand their rights. And he claims that this is what Brody and over 'progressive' activists are doing. Moreover, ignoring the dilemma at the heart of the debate between Brody and the progressives, he goes on to say that the work of the progressives restricts the rights of the democracies to defend themselves; it even criminalizes them for doing just that.

This last part being close to his heart, he wants to get to it as quickly as possible. But he needs to offer the semblance of a solution to the dilemma, or his argument will look like it is missing something. The problem is that he does not have a complete solution. Thus, he begins to discuss something but he quickly aborts it to go to the subject close to his heart. Here is how he does that: “Let's stipulate that unlawful combatants … deserve due process. That raises the question: What process is due an unlawful combatant?” He lists a number of possibilities and dismisses them all to end with this: “...American military tribunals provide much more fairness and truth-seeking than do civilian courts of any of the authoritarian states that dominate the U.N.'s Human Rights Council and General Assembly.” This diatribe does not resolve the dilemma but you ask: How is that anyway? And he does not respond because to do so would have forced him to discuss the Brody article in detail, something that would kill his theory – which he already did not knowing that he did. And so, he goes on to talk about his favorite subject which is Israel.

He does that by attacking Brody as well as the “lawyers, diplomats, and academics” whom, he says, are engaged in “lawfare” against Israel. He gives credit to Peter Berkowitz for inventing the term lawfare and makes use of the volume that the latter wrote under the title: Israel and the Struggle over the international Laws of War. This gives May confidence believing that he has on his side no less an authority than Berkowitz. And so he basically says: Let's hang the suspects then give them a fair trial, but he puts it like this: “...jihadis recognize no international rules governing their behavior.” What he does not say is how he would deem a suspect to be a jihadi or deem him to have failed to recognize the international rules before the trial. The result of his method is that he condemns people upon seizing them which suggests that he would deal with them summarily the way that the Serbian Generals did things in Bosnia, a method for which they were found guilty of war crimes.

What is next? you ask. And he gives an answer but he does so in his usual fashion. He attacks someone – this time the Human-rights activists -- whose goal, he says, is not to persuade “the barbarians” to reform. And he adds this: “On the contrary, they contort legal reasoning to advantage unlawful combatants over warriors who fight by the rules.” He wants you to believe that Berkowitz agrees with these views, and he mentions two examples that were cited by the man himself. They are the U.N.'s Goldstone report of 2009 which condemned Israel, and the Gaza flotilla incident of 2010 which challenged Israel's right to intercept a Turkish ship that was taking relief supplies to Gaza.

But wait a minute, you say, wait a minute. What have these cases got to do with making a choice between trying suspects in a military tribunal or trying them in a court of law? Nothing really. These are completely separate issues but like a leech, Clifford May climbed on the back of Berkowitz to hitch a free ride and make it look like his notion of “hang them first then give them a fair trial” is something that Berkowitz would agree with. Well, let me tell you something, if I were Berkowitz, I would send Clifford May a stiff note telling him to shove it for what he did, then shape up when it comes to quoting me or just shut up.

Undaunted, May ends his piece by raising the question: “What motivates Brody and other activists to want to take us down this road?”

I can answer this question. The motivation behind the road that Brody is pursuing is something that is needed at this time because it is the only way to save the savior. You see, in addition to coming up with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Americans also came up with the system of checks and balances. Under this system, everyone acts to police everyone else. This way, the fish is given several heads, all of which cannot spoil at the same time. No, it is not a system that is absolutely perfect but it is one that has worked well for a long time now.

Life on Earth is evolving as it should but like always, someone has popped up to make of the Jews the odd man out yet again. In addition to this, the perennial losers now have Israel to bring into the game and expand their reach. And because misery seeks company, they are also trying to drag America into their circle of outcasts.

They have made it so that the savior needs to be saved before anything else.

To Shape-Shift The Fox Into A Dove

When the fox cannot get himself appointed guardian of the chicken coop, he tries to do what the wolf does; he tries to wear different clothing. The wolf whose preferred meal is sheep can wear sheep's clothing because the two have the same size and the same physical design. But can the fox whose preferred meal is chicken wear chicken clothing when the two are so different in size and in physical design? The answer is probably not but the fox is foxy as we all know, and he will try many tricks before giving up if he fails the first time or fails ten times in a row.

Likewise, some people are foxy and so are the organizations that they form. They forever try to acquire what does not belong to them by presenting themselves as something different from what they really are. We call these people mercurial because they have the ability to shift their shape in ways that are impossible for the rest of us to duplicate. However, like mercury which is a metal that ought to be in a solid form but remains a fluid at room temperature, these people have the facility to take any shape they want -- looking like something one moment and a different thing another moment. They are the fox that can be a chicken or a hawk or a dove depending on the requirements of the moment.

All sorts of people in all sorts of cultures engage in this sort of thing but no one engages in it as a matter of religious duty but the people who adhere to the Judeo-Yiddish culture. They say they are an ethno-religious group, and they operate under the banner of organizations they put together for one purpose or another. These people will look peaceful, benevolent and vulnerable as they approach you but turn rapacious when they get close enough to bite you. And when they have you securely in their grip, they will not stop devouring you till they have gulped the last morsel of your being. But if you fight back, do it well and remain alive despite their effort, they will see they cannot get much further making a feast out of you and will be peaceful, benevolent and vulnerable again. And they will muster the chutzpah to ask that you pity them, forgive them and make yourself vulnerable like they are.

When it comes to feasting on America – which is what the Jewish organizations do to reach out and take a bite out of the Middle East -- you see them do tricks at the height of their foxy performance. They turn themselves into the peaceful, benevolent and vulnerable dove they want you to think they are, having looked like the hawk they wanted you to think they were not long before that. And you can clearly see this level of performance in an article that was written by Rueuel Marc Gerecht. It was published in the Wall Street Journal on April 23, 2012 under the title: “The Islamist Road to Democracy” and the subtitle: “Muslims cannot be dragged to an embrace of secularism and the liberal values that spring from it. They have to arrive voluntarily at this understanding.”

A neocon to the core, Gerecht minces no words presenting his foxy ideas in the first paragraph of the article. But unlike his previous posture when he used to write with a hawkish beak and a pair of sharp claws, he now knocks very gently at the door of both the “American left and right” to tell them about the Arab Spring that has become an Arab Winter. How does he do it, you ask? Well, are you ready for the answer, my friend? Make sure you are sitting before you continue reading. Here comes the answer: “In Egypt, where Arab liberalism was once strong.” Pow, kaboom, explosion, fireworks. Can you believe it? Can you believe what you just read? It used to be that to a Jew, having the words Egypt, Arab and liberalism in the same sentence was like having TNT, a fuse and a match in the same box. And to admit on top of this that liberalism was “strong” in Egypt is to suggest that the size of the TNT was measured in the kilotons or even megatons. And this is enough to blow up a Hiroshima or a Tokyo. We're talking some serious stuff, my friend; some very serious stuff.

But why does he write in this style now? Because he can see that “religious parties” as he calls them, have “overwhelmed secularists in recent parliamentary elections” in Egypt. And he predicts that “An Islamist is now certain to be elected president … and a referendum that would likely down the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty is probably in the future.” And so he needs to adapt to the new realities by shape-shifting his appearance. What was anathema to the Jews and to Israel, they now make it look like they accept it, even love it. And they will remain in this state till they find themselves in a position to bite again at which time they will change back to their normal selves.

In the meantime, Gerecht performs an act of mental gymnastics of the most dizzying kind to communicate his new posture. He comes up with the following conclusion: “As counterintuitive as it seems, they [Muslim fundamentalists] are the key to more democratic, liberal politics in the region.” But how powerful can a conclusion be without contrasting it against something else? And so, he serves you with that something else: “The case for separation of mosque and state has been harder to make … because most Muslims have not been burned by internecine strife. The West has become … liberal … because its past savagery was so intense … Christian forefathers killed each other zealously over religious differences.” Wow! A Jew saying this? How do you say halleluiah in Arabic? Never mind because guess what, halleluiah is said to be a Hebrew word that some Arabs even claim was borrowed from them.

The development in Egypt being sufficient to shape-shift our author from having the look of a hawk to that of a dove, foxy Gerecht wastes no time preparing for the eventual return back to the look of a hawk, an appearance he will want to reacquire when the circumstances will have changed anew. He does this by praising Islam one more time to tranquilize the readers, but it is something he does while injecting a dose of the venom that will again distort the image of the Arabs and the Muslims and help him get things back to the old normal. To this end, he writes the following: “Islam hasn't seen the sustained barbarism … Reform-minded Muslims have usually critiqued their faith with an eye to the West … without appreciating both the highs and lows of Occidental history.” Islam is good, he says, but the Muslims are not good enough to fully appreciate the Occident. Call it the head of a hawk fixed to the body of a dove.

 However, you would think that the author will want to explain that idea but no, he only injects it as a small dose of his venom and moves on to the next injection. The following being that next injection: “A hundred years ago … Muslim intellectuals … tried to work out a synthesis between the West and Islam … post-World War II rulers, however, merely dictated that Muslim clergy and the faithful change their ways.” And so you ask: Was there a contradiction between the two positions? Again, he does not say but he adds the following: “Against the seductive power … which in the hands of military men ran roughshod … Islam stood as a barrier to 'progress.'” What? How does he get from here to there? He does not say because there is no link between the two. All he wanted to do was slam Islam as being a barrier to progress and he did so, period. Like they say, you don't ask where venom comes from; venom is venom and that's all there is to it.

Having begun the article by mentioning the parliamentary elections in Egypt which gave the party of the Muslim Brotherhood a big share of the seats, he now does something to try and “own” what he and those like him used to fight against like savages. That something is what he calls: “The all-purpose fundamentalist cry, 'Islam is the answer'” which he now describes as being a Muslim self-critique and a “tendentious reading of history.” But that was the “cry” they used to describe as being the modern call to a holy war against the West. Oh well, that was then and this is now – and now that he made the fundamentalist cry work for him, he reassures the readers: “What ought to be obvious now is that Muslims ...” well, the rest of this sentence is what makes the subtitle of the article.

What has prompted him to do this is the realization that any interference with the way that the Arab Revolution is progressing will have negative consequences. And so he basically says: hands off the Arabs and the Muslims for now. Is this a good thing? It should be except that he is anything but good because what he does next is inject more venom in the discussion, and he does so in large doses this time. He begins with the grandest lie that the Jewish propaganda machine ever perpetuated in America since an African American discovered that the Jews were the biggest slave traders in history and wrote a book about it. Gerecht insinuates that the Muslims did it too because the Quran authorized it – both accusations being false.

 However, he goes on to say that Islam no longer allows slavery: “because Muslims successfully grafted European ethics onto Islamic mores.” This is baloney but it is a small lie. However, he needs to tell a big lie, one that will concord with the fact that he is afflicted with the most virulent of Jewish diseases: the belief that nobody can be good unless they are forced to be good. But he knows the new lie will be easy to unmask, and he is afraid to tell it in the open lest he be called a two-bit asshole. What he does, therefore, is insinuate the lie by putting it between brackets like this (British warships also helped stop the trade.) He does not say that the British warships frightened the Arabs and forced them to stop the slave trade, but he wants the readers to conclude it on their own. Coward. Let us say he is not a two-bit asshole; he is a cowardly asshole.

Having established that you are reading the work of a cowardly asshole – it is nothing more scholarly than that, in fact -- you wonder if you should continue to waste your time reading the rest of the article. You think about it for a second and decide to continue reading in the hope of seeing something that will redeem the article, or something that will give you a new insight as to why these people did the things that have turned Western stomachs so much as to holocaust them, pogrom them, gas them and incinerate them. And all this happened when the Arabs and the Muslims never engaged in brutal practices as admitted by the author himself.

As you continue to read the piece, you bump against the usual lies, distortions and fantasies but see nothing that redeems it. However, you meet a new insight in the last paragraph that tells you it was worth the time you spent reading the thing. What you meet is this: “Fundamentalists … will be neither our friends nor allies. But their debates with each other ... will get evolution rolling. Down that path lies … less angry relations between Islam and the West.” This is a whole bunch of loaded assertions he throws into the mix without explanation. But what the heck, he's a Jew, he can do anything he wants and no one will say boo.

But you muster the courage to stop for a moment and ponder. Given that up to now, the Egyptians and a number of Arab countries were considered to be “our allies” if not “our friends”, this guy is saying that the Arab Revolution is making it impossible for these people to be our friends or allies again. But why? He does not say why, but you get a sense as to what the answer may be.

You begin to formulate the answer when you read the last sentence of the last paragraph: “Dictatorship nostalgia, on the other hand, will take us right back to the cul-de-sac where Osama bin Laden was born.” What Gerecht says here is that the choice is between democracy in which case “they” will turn against “us” through the ballot box, or it is dictatorship in which case they will turn against us in the manner of bin Laden. In other words, there is no hope of ever having a good relationship with these people.

When you contrast this with what he said earlier, mainly that Arab liberalism has proven itself capable of growing strong roots, you wonder why he does not now believe that democracy can make everything right, which is what Jewish leaders such as himself have been drumming into the heads of Americans for many years. The answer hits you when you remember that he said nobody can be good unless they are forced to be good. And this leads you to conclude that yes, the Jews are advocating democracy but it is a democracy that comes at the end of a whip.

And this, in fact, is how they rule America now. This is a place where everyone, including the journalists, the legislators and the executives of government are blackmailed into performing correctly according to Jewish norms or else. Having accomplished all this, the Jewish leaders now seek to use the power, wealth and prestige of America to rule the world like they rule America. If only Hitler had a whip!

It must be said that the people of the kibbutz, now sitting ill-at-ease in the Knesset, are the foxy wolf in sheep clothing; a wolf that is endowed with the wings and the beak -- not of a chicken – but the wings and beak of a hawk. And the world is telling them: stay away from us.

Back To Square One All Over Again

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. This saying has been repeated so many times in recent years, it is difficult to find someone that has not heard of it. And yet, you can meet people who want to keep doing the same thing over and over again. It is as if they never heard of the saying, or they heard of it but do not believe it, or they do not understand what it means. But then it occurs to you it could be that these people want to continue doing what they do because they cherish the status quo, wish to perpetuate it and want the same result all the time.

That status is exemplified by the American thrust into the Middle East, an intrusion that turned out to be a tragedy of the first order for the region, for America and for the world. Indeed, what happened in the Middle East during the past few decades has been the single most important factor in the transformation of America from the beloved military and economic superpower that it was to the detested trespasser it has become in the eyes of the locals. What makes matters worse is the fact that America is seen as being a declining power, one that is trying desperately to overstretch itself militarily at a time when its economy is so disintegrating it will no longer be able to maintain the military it has.

The wrenching thing to the people who once appreciated America and want to see it regain its old glory is the knowledge that the superpower did not find itself in the Middle East by accident. They know now that to get it there was something planned for a long time ago, and done in secret. In fact, the nation was maneuvered into that position by the Jewish organizations; the same ones now trying to keep America in the region at perpetuity. The leaders of these organizations are the people who cherish the status quo and want to maintain it. They succeeded in getting America into the Middle East by getting it out of Asia, something they accomplished by taking advantage of the difficult time that the military was having in the Vietnam war, and they stabbed it in the back by attacking it on the home front.

Thus, when you come right down to it, you see that the Jewish leaders managed to defeat the American military not so much on the battlefield but on the editorial pages of the print publications, and in the production studios of the television networks at home. They had been quietly infiltrating the print and audio-visual publications, and were beginning to take effective control of them. When they felt secure enough in their new positions, they championed the withdrawal of America from Asia while at the same time pushing the nation to deploy in the Middle East. Their motive was then as it is now the protection of Israel while the criminal entity pushes ahead with its murderous expansionist agenda.

After forty years of misadventures in the Middle East, the Americans began to realize that once haggard Asia is now developing at least two superpowers, China and India, who are on their way to become rivals to their country. They see this happen at a time when America itself is sliding toward the status of a haggard. Before the Asian powers become too entrenched in the Western Pacific and be too super to handle, the Americans wisely started to move some forces there in their quest to fashion a new strategic posture. But this meant that America will have to reduce its presence in the Middle East, a move that has alarmed the Jewish organizations so much, they responded by mobilizing their mouthpieces and by giving them a job to do.

The mouthpieces were instructed to call on America to remain in the Middle East. They are to keep hammering this point till the country abandons every plan its military may develop to deploy forces in Asia. The fear of the Jewish organizations is that to move a few forces now will only be the beginning of a trend that will see America increase its presence in the Pacific at the expense of the Middle East. Thus, we see that the Jews are back to square one all over again doing the same thing and expecting the same result. It is a return to the old days but for a few exceptions: the Jewish organizations now control more than the publications of America, they control the whole country – lock, stock and barrel as well as the septic tanks that masquerade as think tanks and a shameless Congress of clowns reputed to poke sticks in the eyes of their commander-in-chief while throwing enthusiastic ovations to the rug pissing dog from Israel.

And you can detect the early stages of that Jewish call when you read two pieces recently published in the Wall Street Journal. The first is a column authored by Bret Stephens which came on April 17, 2012 under the title: “The China Myth Unravels” and the subtitle: “The Bo Xilai affair reveals a country whose political and social institutions are anything but stable.” The second is an article authored by Michael Eastman which came the next day on April 18, 2012 under the title: “The Risk of Exaggerating the China Threat” and the subtitle: “Don't tailor military power for the Pacific at the expense of the dangerous Middle East.”

Like a one-two punch, the pieces seem to complement each other in the sense that you detect a continuation of the themes they tackle when you go from the Stephens column to the Eastman article. You also get the feeling that Bret Stephens has softened you and prepared you to the effect that China is not all it is cracked up to be. This done, he hands you over to Michael Eastman who delivers a hard message, one that says America must maintain a strong presence in the more dangerous Middle East even if it deems it necessary to preoccupy itself with China and the Pacific region.

Thus, despite the earlier columns published only a few weeks prior; columns in which Stephens raised the level of hysteria several notches as he warned about the growing power of China on land, in the air, in the blue seas, beneath them and in outer space -- he now writes the following: “This is not a country on its way to global supremacy.” In fact, this is how he ends the article. But to get there and still maintain a modicum of credibility, he was forced to dish out a whole bunch of mambo jumbo from the start. He tried in this way to avoid jolting the readers into the realization that he is manipulating them to accomplish a goal that contradicts everything he stood for in the past. And that mambo jumbo is what the new column is all about.

Instead of pointing the finger at himself, he begins the article by sticking it to someone he does not name. He does it like this: “Is [China's] rise inevitable? For 20 years at least, China boosters have told us it is … Now … we're learning it ain't necessarily so.” But why is that? you ask. And he responds in a way that blows your mind. Basically, what he says is this: The Chinese are as bad as we are but we're not as bad as they are. In fact, you read through 800 words about a scandal which he says: “...isn't too different from political scandals anywhere: Rod Blagojevich in Illinois, say, or Dominique Strauss-Kahn in France,” which is to say that the Chinese are as bad as we are. But you ask: Why would they not be on their way to global supremacy since we are supreme? And he responds that we're not as bad as they are, therefore we can do things they cannot do. What? What's that again? Well, you have to be Jewish to write like this, my friend – to understand it also.

Anyway, I have no desire to discuss the scandal itself, and so you will have to read the Bret Stephens column if you want to know more about it. As to the article by Michael Eastman who is a military man, it begins by reassuring the reader that it is a more disciplined and more moderate piece than the Stephens column even though it tackles the same themes.

This is how Eastman puts it: “As American military planners examine national security in light of … concerns such as the rise of China, they must not neglect other strategic realities.” He goes on to explain the thing in this manner: “...it's important to distinguish between threats that are most dangerous and threats that are most likely … particularly the Middle East, where economic, demographic and political trends make conflict far more likely...” Thus, he acknowledges that while a conflict in the Middle East is more likely, the rise of China is potentially most dangerous, which supports what Stephens used to say but contradicts what he now says.

These being military matters and Eastman being a military man, you take his word for it. But where you question some of the things he says is when he delves into the matter of predicting the social and economic development of the Middle Eastern nations. He says this: “...oil-producing Middle Eastern states will have little cause to diversify their economies … The gap between rich and poor will persist as a source of popular dissatisfaction … by 2030 more than half the Middle East's population will still be under 34. This … will challenge even efficient regimes … Alienated young people are potential recruits to radical Islam.” You know he is talking about the Arab Middle East because he mentions Iran separately right after this passage.

The problem with Eastman's understanding of the Arab Middle East in terms of the social and economic developments happening there is that his grasp of the region has come about as a result of the negative propaganda perpetrated by the Jewish controlled media in his country. In other words, it is garbage. In fact, his elaboration of the related points consists of nothing more than a list of false cliches, each of which was invented to distort reality in one country or another. Yet, here he is lumping all the countries together and throwing all the cliches at them without making a distinction between any. At first, you get a sense that he is separating the oil-producing states from the other states but he only makes one comment in this regard then talks about the Middle East as if all the states in it formed a single and monolithic Arab/Muslim entity.

What the people who are interested in the Middle East need to know before they do analysis or pass any judgment is that the governments there are spending not millions of dollars or billions of them, but spending sums of money in the trillions of dollars to develop their societies and diversify their economies. However, there is an important difference between the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula where most of the oil is to be found, and the other Arabs - themselves distinguished as being either of North Africa or the Levant.

The culture of the water poor Peninsula was developed over the centuries around the nomadic traders who moved goods between the Far East and Europe thus made a profit and a good living for themselves. These people never developed agriculture thus never got their hands dirty. This is why the current governments in those places find it costly to build an industrial base, and difficult to instill the spirit of industry in their people. Luckily, they have oil, therefore have the money to import workers from somewhere else, which they do while encouraging their people to get with it and get their hands dirty as they train on the job to produce aluminum, petrochemicals and parts for airplanes. They also learn all about high technology and nanotechnology in ultra modern universities, colleges and research laboratories.

As to North Africa, there has always been the Nile in the East and the rain in the West. This is why you find that Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco and now Algeria have diversified economies that stand on solid industrial bases if modest when compared to those of the fully developed countries. The same applies to the nations of the Levant who always had water, being in the legendary Fertile Crescent. The difference between them and the people of North Africa, however, is that the two developed different temperaments. It is that the North Africans always felt secure being protected by the vastness of the deserts surrounding them. Thus, you find that their culture is based on optimism as shown by their love of life and the desire to go on living after death – even if this is done in a mummified state. By contrast, the people of the Levant were always raided and looted by someone and by each other. They developed a pessimistic culture that makes them suspicious of strangers and of each other, and keeps them in a permanent state of fear.

As far as I can tell, no serious attempt was made in America to draw up a profile of the human side of these people so as to formulate intelligent approaches and policies that would make sense to them. Instead, you see policies formulated at the highest level of the American government based on the writings of a Jewish journalist or two who would be reporting for prestigious publications. All you get from them is filing after filing of stories that tell of the refrigerator that went down and was replaced, the garbage strike that made a city block look like a dump, the heavy smoker whose finger was yellowed by the tobacco he smokes -- and all sorts of other loathsome reporting done at this level of superficiality, ignorance and crudeness.

The same applies to non-Arab Iran but for a small difference. It is that Israel has had a love-hate relationship with that country for a long time, and what the Jewish propaganda machine in America tries to do is motivate the political and military leaders to love Iran one day and hate it the other – exactly the way that kids do their thing in the yard of a high school. It is no wonder, therefore, that we see Michael Eastman write this: “Emboldened by a nuclear deterrent, Iran will ... exert influence abroad. Unable to satisfy its restive populace, the regime will … remain a persistent force for ... instability.” And this leads him to the following conclusion: “These factors underscore the importance of American land forces, which retain significant roles that we cannot perform if we tailor the military solely for the Pacific.”

Thus, a military doctrine for the American armed forces is being shaped by considerations that do not rise above the level of a high school yard. Its author discusses it in detail by advocating the build up of “significant land forces” to partner with other militaries in the region because: “As a demonstration of intent, few actions carry the weight of American boots on the ground.” It is Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq all over again except that this time, it will all be done to protect Israel and defend the insatiable appetite it has to expand its territory at the expense of its neighbors. America is being suckered again so that the Jews may have it their way.

What the patriotic leaders of America should remember is that 9/11 happened in part because American land forces partnered in the worst possible of ways with the Saudi military. What they should also get through their heads is that their people are being killed by their Afghan partners because somebody does not like this partnership. Moreover, the Egyptian people who have seen what it means to partner with a Jewish dominated America are now saying: Keep this plague away from our sacred soil.

Listen to me, America, if you want to partner with the people of the Middle East, don't go pimping for Israel. Whether you go to talk military matters or economics or culture, negotiate for yourselves only because they will be negotiating for themselves and no one else. The moment they smell that you are promoting the interests of Israel, they will flush you down the toilet and walk away to avoid you as they would a dreaded plague.

The Contrived Game Of Love And Hate

The people who study the human brain are working hard to determine what biological functions and activities contribute to the creation of sentiments such as love and hate. Good luck to them. But until they have all the answers, we know that these sentiments do exist and that they can be turned into powerful locomotives that will do as much as pull the train of history. Setting aside the naturally occurring affinity between two beings such as a mother and her child, or the hormonally induced attraction between two beings at the start of their reproductive cycle, we observe that tools are used on a daily basis to artificially create sentiments of love or hate for the purpose of serving one cause or another.

In fact, these sentiments can be tailor-made and manipulated at the micro level by an individual whose motivation might be the petty attempt to influence the course of mundane events, and thus satisfy the personal desires of the perpetrator. In this case, the fabricated sentiments will affect a small number of people, perhaps as limited as a handful or as much as a group. On the other hand, sentiments can be tailor-made and manipulated at the macro level by highly trained professionals whose mission will be to shape the course of much broader events, and thus help to nudge history and force it to take a predetermined direction. In this case, the fabricated sentiments will acquire the potential to affect people at the national level or even the planetary level.

The tool that comes into play to produce love is envy, something that happens naturally but for an exception or two. As to hate, the tool often used to produce it is fear, something that happens artificially most of the time. For example, if a number of men and one woman -- who is plain and ordinary in their eyes -- find themselves working in the same space, nothing happens till one man expresses interest in the woman. Almost immediately, the other men will envy him and begin to compete for her attention. Each man will then come to believe that he always had feelings for her, and may convince himself that she is someone he can love someday if such is not the case already.

There is also the possibility of making people love someone or something by making them hate the opposite -- an artificial feat that is complicated to pull off but that is done often enough. The trick works because people can be incited to hate to the point of harming someone or vandalizing something. This is accomplished by making people fear a person, ascribing to him or to her both evil intent and the power to inflict it on others. Salvation is then promised to come by embracing the opposite. We see, therefore, that artificial means exist to make people hate someone or something, or make them love by way of hating the opposite. I call this the game of love and hate. If you look around, you will see that playing it is a very common occurrence and you will see that it represents a large part of the human preoccupation both at the micro and the macro levels.

Not all the cultures play the game with the same interest or play it at the same level of intensity. In fact, the spectrum is full of examples that range from one extreme to the other. The interested observer will discover that some cultures are too innocent to know how to play the game well, and so they play it very little. Some cultures are too sophisticated to want to play the game at all but play it nonetheless in the absence of having something better to do. And throughout history, cultures have come and gone that were depraved enough to want to play the game incessantly -- and so they did. These cultures were sophisticated enough to get away with playing the game for a time at the macro level before they were unmasked and punished for the damage they were causing.

In this last category, the culture known as Judeo-Yiddish is the most depraved thing you could ever meet on this planet. It never stops playing the game, always playing it in the most savage way you can imagine. In fact, the people who adhere to it are removed from reality by such a distance, you cannot miss detecting this reality every time you look at the trail they leave behind. An example of this is a piece written by Josef Joffe and published in the Wall Street Journal on April 17, 2012 under the title: “Gunter Grass's Tin Ear” and the subtitle: 'The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz' runs a mind-bending quip.

Joffe discusses the commotion that has erupted in Germany when Nobel Laureate Gunter Grass published his newest poem: “What Must Be Said,” a work in which he criticizes Israel despite his re-education by the American method, an exercise that led him initially to denounce the Nazi philosophy of life, an attitude he maintained during a good part of his long life. But contrary to the presumption that he will continue to love Israel, love it unconditionally and love it for ever, he seems to have had a change of heart. But aside from reporting on this snippet, a chagrined Joffe does not say much more about the Grass poem or its author.

What Joffe does in detail is report on the reaction of the German and European public to the Gunter Grass poem. And he concludes the article by making the point that antisemitism still exists on that Continent, though to a lesser degree than it used to be. What we get from this reporting and from the author's conclusion is not so much what he consciously wishes to communicate but what he unwittingly says about himself and his culture which happens to be the Judeo-Yiddish. And what comes out in a stark manner is how these people play the game of love and hate.

As you go through the first few paragraphs of the Joffe article, you get the sense that he believes only the Jews have a full fledged history, one that is replete with human endeavors. All the while, everyone else has nothing but a histrionics of cold facts as they can be expressed in dates and places. In his eyes the Jews are human at the core while the others are plastic characters in need of reeducation if not a remake from scratch. A good example to look at is the way he tells the story of Gunter Grass who wrote the novel “The Tin Drum” in 1959 for which he won the Nobel Prize in 1999 but then revealed in 2006 that he was a member of the Nazi SS during a previous life. A long life described in such cold terms.

But in the face of those cold facts, Joffe makes the following comment: Had he “sprung the shocker a decade earlier, his novel … would still shine … but without the Nobel Prize.” This says how much he regrets that the events played themselves out in the wrong sequence. The real shocker, however, is that he allows no consideration to the possibility that the poet may be a full fledged human being that must have agonized before deciding to alter his position. On the contrary, the Jewish writer of the article treats the non-Jewish poet as if he were a physical thing that can be blown from here to there by the winds of change.

And now, says Joffe, comes the “bigger bombshell, a poem titled 'What Must Be Said'” in which Grass explains he was cowed by the 'verdict of anti-Semitism' but now that he is getting older, he finally dares to speak out because Israel is getting ready to wage war against Iran, and thus threatens the peace of the world which is fragile to begin with. And Israel is behaving the way it does because it was armed in part with German-made weapons such as submarines, a reality that will make Germany share the guilt.

In response to these charges, Joffe says without giving proof or giving a hint as to where the proof may be found that “Iran is routinely threatening Israel with eradication.” And he follows with this bizarre gag: “President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is but a 'loudmouth,' a lamb in wolf's clothing” without telling us what we're supposed to make of it. But he asks: “Was this anti-Semitism?” Actually he quotes Israel's envoy to Germany as having asked this question and having explained that it was in the European tradition to stick the Jews with blood libel just before Passover. He has conspiracy theory on his mind, you see.

Joffe then makes the point that “After the Holocaust, traditional anti-Semitism is out.” Where it used to be that the Jews were fingered as being Christ killers who made matzo with the blood of Christian children, and were fingered as being usurers and plunderers of the other races, the Jewish state of Israel is now charged by analogy “with concocting the greatest possible evil: a nuclear Holocaust to be visited on Iran and the entire world.” And he goes on to explain that Grass believes Israel was able to achieve all this because it could enslave 80 million Germans. It did so by wielding the Holocaust thus gouged the submarines from the Germans and suppressed what must be said.

From this point to the end of the article, a picture is painted that clearly demonstrates why the Judeo-Yiddish culture was rejected by every race and every religion; every time and everywhere on this planet. Look what Joffe does instead of engaging in a serious discussion: “This is mendacity to the max, for critical coverage of Israel is a staple of the German media.” He dismisses the entire premise of the Grass poem with one sentence by asserting something that is totally false. And you can tell it is false because if it were true, he and people like him would be writing an article a day similar to the one we are discussing. And as if he had not done enough, Joffe finds a motive as to why the Grass poem was written in the first place: “The motive is unbearable guilt feelings … How to regain moral worth? By projecting culpability onto Israel.”

Here too, you see a loaded statement without proof or explanation as to how it is arrived at and why it is there. And this is where you realize that when the bell tolls and the writing goes on the wall, the Judeo-Yiddish culture does not see or hear a warning to the effect that it must reform, but sees and hears a call to attack the messengers and accuse them of telling falsehoods. But there is more because aside from expressing a mild contentment that Germany is now a liberal democracy, he does not see the need to probe deeper into the matter or try to understand why the Germans and the Europeans describe the current situation by what he calls the three classics: “They are the new Nazis,” “Gaza is like the Warsaw Ghetto,” and “We learned our lesson, the Israelis did not.”

That lesson, of course, has to do with understanding history but the problem is that the Yiddish culture is based on the Jewish religion which itself is based on fictitious events that have no trace in recorded history. In fact, the stated events amount to nothing more than religious fantasies used by these people to interpret current events, predict what will happen next and prepare for that. And you see how the Jewish inability to understand history has affected Joffe's writing. Instead of taking up the history behind the transformation of Gunter Grass from being a supporter of Israel to becoming its critic, he writes useless histrionics and lashes out at everything that contradicts the description of Jews and Israelis as being the infinite expression of absolute perfection.

Then comes the typical Jewish attempt to have it both ways, the consequence of which is to explode the whole presentation and send it to kingdom come. Bear in mind that these are the people who would violate every sense of measured response as they mobilize all the forces that they can, recruiting anyone who would join their effort to go after an ordinary individual who might have said something they consider to be unflattering to Israel or to the Jews. When asked why they do this, they parrot the refrain: Nazism started with a single man and look how it all ended. But you look for the real reason as to why they do what they do, and you find it to be that they do it because they can. And they can because they are allowed to do it. And so you ask: What happens when they cannot do it? Well, this is something else altogether.

Here is what happened with Josef Joffe. He set up a good-news-bad-news situation and began by telling the good news. It is “that the poem did not play well in the Middle,” he says. He then tells about the bad news which “oozes out from the underground.” He explains that while the mainstream media (which represents the middle) has criticized Grass's poem, the internet (which represents the extreme on both sides) has brought people by the thousands, 90% of whom cheered Mr. Grass with the “At last!” type comment or worse. He also reports these facts: “The norm for Europe is for 15% -20% of the population to possess opinions labeled … anti-Semitism.” And he expresses this opinion: “Germany is … mainstream … that is reassuring.”

See? See how these people would turn the world upside down to go after a single person whose life they try to destroy, but find it reassuring that 20% of the population has turned antisemitic?

And this, my friend, is the contrived approach to life that takes these people from one calamity to the other, punishing the world alongside them for not stopping them before they go too far.

Like says Gunter Grass the German poet, the time has come to defang Israel, bring peace to the Middle East, save the planet in the process and help ourselves to boot. I would add to this that we must also clip the wings of the Jewish organizations for, they are the disease that keeps plaguing mankind.