He Went To Kick Asses, Got Terrorized Instead

The American culture is such that it can make a joke out of any situation, and the people will laugh at it – but not always. There are times when the occasion is so solemn you can neither think of it as funny nor seek to trivialize it by turning it into a moment of cheap humor. Those who make a living producing the comedy that adds to the American culture and enriches it understand this reality, and they adhere to an unwritten code that has kept them from crossing the line between what is acceptable and what is not. But things are changing.

Things are changing in a way that was totally unexpected not long ago. It is that a humor – a kind of sick humor is now coming not from the professional humorists who still restrain themselves but from people who came close to being a casualty in a serious situation but were lucky enough to escape a dire fate. The sickening part is that some of these people have started to cash in on their experience by turning it into a farcical moment to be laughed at. They are doing so in complete disregard of the other people: those who perished, those who suffered and may have recovered, and those who still suffer and may continue to suffer to the end of their days.

One of the would-be comedians is Tom Cotton, a character recently elected to represent an Arkansas district in the Federal House of Representatives. He was a soldier in Iraq who must have had a cushy job because he never encountered the enemy, never saw actual combat and was never injured. He is now back in America doing two unexpected things. First, he is doing the sort of thing that the Jewish lobby used to do; the thing by which the lobby trivialized the Holocaust. Second, he is doing the sort of thing that the Israeli army used to do; the thing by which it acquired the image of an army of cold blood killers and of male bimbos.

Tom Cotton must love doing this sort of things because he has done it yet again. He wrote an article under the title: “Hagel's Historical Delusions” and had it published on January 19, 2013 in the National Review Online. He starts the article with this statement: “...Chuck Schumer … implying [Hagel] to be … massively ignorant of history...” And so you ask: What's he beefing about? And he tells you what that is. He says this: “[Hagel] basically said, look, the bottom line is the world has changed since 2005, '06, and '07. Iran is … more militant [now] than it was then.” And you are puzzled that he should beef about something like this.

So you ask if there is humor in trivializing something as serious as this. You think about it, and all you can tell is that there is no hard hitting humor in it but maybe a light one – enough perhaps to make people smile, or chuckle a little. It is that when it comes to being massively ignorant about history, Tom Cotton has shown to be the most massive of them all. He did so when he forgot – or was being deliberately ignorant of his own history. This would be the history which pertains to the expression of an opinion on how the world is changing, and what the consequences of that change may be.

Look what happened here: At some point near the end of the Twentieth Century, a cocky young Tom Cotton wrote an article and had it published. It was an article in which he attacked the use of the internet in the classroom. Shown how wrong he was by the passage of time, Cotton refused to admit he was fundamentally mistaken about the subject, but acknowledged that he has undergone a change of heart and a change of mind on the matter.

To this end, he posited that the world has changed and so did the internet. He also said it is for this reason and this reason only that he now believes the internet is okay to have in the classroom. Well, we can only say it is too bad for the Cotton to have chosen being so massively ignorant of his own history before attacking Chuck Hagel's treatment of history. He made a fool of himself in the process, and he knitted a story that shows the historical delusions he talked about to have been not those of Hagel but his own. Laughter please.

While there may be humor in this, there can be no humor in another stance that Tom Cotton has taken. Look at this passage: “Iran was smuggling a ... roadside bomb into Iraq … To be fair, though, perhaps Mr. Hagel didn’t think these acts of war made Iran dangerous ... After all, he voted in 2007 against designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization.” To explain how staggering this is to an international audience, I must say something that is taboo here in North America but is not in the rest of the world where this sort of stance is mentioned more often and more solemnly than here.

When you go to war, you don't expect the enemy to treat you with courtesy. You try to kill him before he kills you because if you don't, you end up dead and he goes home to his loved ones. The enterprise called war must be as frightening to him as it is to you. Thus, the one thing you should never say is that you were a good soldier facing him, but he was a terrorist facing you. If and when you talk like this, the world will say about you what is no longer uttered in North America. It will call you a faget while in North America, they may only call you a male bimbo in a soldier's uniform.

This idea about “us” being soldiers, and “them” being terrorists was put forward by the Judeo-Israeli league for the poison of the American mind and the American culture. It all started when the world began to see the extent of the terror that the heavily armed Israeli soldiers and the Jewish settlers were committing against the unarmed civilian population of Palestine. To legitimize Jewish terrorism and delegitimize the Palestinian resistance to occupation, the Jewish propaganda machine in America first attacked the Palestinians by recruiting people who stood in front of the cameras and sniveled: “They throw stones at our soooldiers, oh pity me, pity meee.”

When they did not get enough pity from a public that had it up to here with Jewish self pity, constant whining and forever exacting something for nothing, the Jewish propaganda machine upped the ante in that it started to describe the Israeli soldiers of occupation as being “just kids” barely 18 years of age who should never see a stone thrown at them even when they shoot to kill Palestinian babies in the arms of their mothers, and kill the mothers too.

When that kind of propaganda failed to make the people of America run in the streets to demand justice for the Israelis and punishment for the Palestinians, the Jewish lobby got into the act. It blackmailed the prostitutes that populate the Congress as well as their male counterparts, the bimbos of that same institution.

They all got together and passed resolution after resolution in favor of Israel and all the Jewish causes. Among these was a resolution to the effect that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps was henceforth regarded as being a terrorist organization. The prostitutes and the male bimbos signed it; the real men and real women refrained. Now, Tom Cotton is whining that the outcome was not unanimous.

If America is to be respected again in the world, it will have to have real men and real women at the helm governing it. No longer can it afford to send GIs “to kick asses” then complain they were terrorized by an enemy that refused to treat them with courtesy. This is not what real GIs expect; it is what the world sees as being the wish of a faget right out the mold of a Tom Cotton.

I will only say to him: Shut up, you male bimbo. Just shut up and spare your country further embarrassment.

The world will not apologize for its views and neither will I for mine.

A Word Of Advice To Potential Recruits

The Wall Street Journal which is known to represent World Jewry, and known to stand as the movement's loudest megaphone, has revealed what it wishes to see happen sometime in the near future. It did so in an editorial titled: “Al Qaeda, again” and subtitled: The terrorist don't seem to agree that they have been defeated,” published on January 19, 2013. The editors of the Journal have expressed their wish this way: “Between his Inaugural address … and the State of the Union speech … we hope President Obama finds space to include some comments on Algeria. And Mali. And Benghazi.”

The occasion is that there has been an election in the United States of America where the President was re-elected. A new Congress was also elected and inaugurated as will soon be the President. Composed of members of the House representing their districts, and of senators representing their states, the veteran legislators and the rookies among them will soon begin doing their part in the Congress to join the President in the governance of the nation.

The legislators will do their part using the powers that were conferred on them by the American people, will do it in accordance with the terms that were enshrined in the Constitution by the founding fathers of the nation, and do it in accordance with the amendments that were introduced in later years as well as the statutes that came into effect after that.

There is no doubt that if left to themselves, the legislators would discharge their duty at a high level of honesty or better, each according to their talent and their abilities. However, the constitution provides for the petition of these people by their constituents, a necessary provision in the democratic system that is not without consequences. It is that the provision leads to pressure being brought to bear on the legislators from the outside – some of which will be legitimate pressure and some will be illegitimate. This is where the matter usually starts to go complicated; where the system opens itself to potential abuse and deterioration.

Looking at the life of a nation that may be a full democracy or a quasi democracy, the groups that exert illegitimate pressure on its legislators can only be identified or assessed after the fact – most likely a long time after the fact. The reality is that the members of such groups or their proxies will come into the life of a legislator from the outside, disguised as legitimate lobbyists. They will go through the motion of presenting what seems to be a lawful petition when, in fact, the presentation will be neither a petition nor a lawful act. Instead, it will be a bribe, a blackmail or both, wrapped into a proposition that invites the legislator to betray his or her conscience – even betray their oath of office to advance the causes of the outside group.

Some legislators will knuckle under the pressure of the blackmail, other legislators will succumb to the lure of the bribe, and one or the other will end up using the powers conferred on them to act not in accordance with the terms enshrined in the Constitution or the amendments introduced in later years or even the statutes that came after that. What they will do, instead, is act in a scandalous manner then hope to get away with it.

This has been the political history of the United States of America since it came together as a nation, and where groups that promoted one cause or another have come and gone. Some groups lasted a long time; other groups lasted a short period of time, but never before did a group come along with the intent to fundamentally alter the substance of the nation. Never before, that is, until now.

There is now a lobby that is a veritable shape shifter; one that changes its appearance as easily as it changes its methods of operation, even its name. It started as an anti-defamation league then became a political action committee then became a Jewish defense league then became a Jewish lobby then became a Zionist lobby then became an Israeli lobby then became je ne sais quoi, which (translated from the French) means: don't know what else – probably a thousand other things.

Whatever the name they assume for a given occasion, the members of that group are gradually adopting the policy of spending less energy to fight the notion that their intent is to alter the substance of the nations they infiltrate. Instead, they are spending their effort to make their activities look like a package of divine virtues handed to them from above. The package contains a revelation, they say, to the effect that they were chosen to fix the affairs of humanity by subjugating it to their volition – a mental disposition they promise will someday prove to be the expression of God's will.

All of that is spelled out in the Old Testament, they say, a book they consider to be the bible of their religious beliefs. When you go through that book, my dear reader, you will find in it all the blood, the terror, the gore, the horror, the pain and the suffering you can imagine – all spread out from cover to cover on each and every page. And there is also the fire that will be used to cleanse what is undesirable, and make way for what the Jews will bring to humanity when the Messiah will hand them the scepter of the sovereign, instructing them to take command of God's creation and head it from here to eternity.

Hence, the question for the rest of us to ask: What is it that these people do to prepare for the day when they believe the Messiah will show up? The answer is that they try to take as much control as they can of anyone who will let them get away with it. They have learned over the years that President Obama is less a pushover than some of his predecessors, thus they concentrate on the Congress which has traditionally been the cesspool of American political treason and subordination to Jewish dictates. They will get to work and will recruit as many members of both chambers as they can to tell the people of America and the people of the world that the Jews are in charge of the superpower; of its culture, its finances and its military.

You can see this in the way that their current editorial is structured. Having lamented that: “Mr. Obama has tried to keep the world … at arm's length,” they went on to assert that: “it is impossible to blink from the reality … al Qaeda is … an active threat to U.S. interests.” Then they did something that is very Jewish. To see what that is, look at the debating style they have used. First, they said this: “When the French sent troops and planes to Mali last week … the U.S. support it expected didn't come.” Without hesitation, they added that they know: “The geopolitical strategists at al Qaeda promptly (that's promptly) upped the ante.”

But you ask: What is it that the strategists did promptly? And the editors of the Journal answer: “[they did] what's described as a well-planned offensive.” Well planned offensive in a week? Wow, you say to yourself, these Jews did it to themselves again. Eager to have it both ways, they stated a paradox. They said that al-Qaeda mounted and executed a well-planned (time-consuming) offensive, and did it (promptly). Just as it is with the clarity they see in the moral ambiguities they continually spout, these people see promptness in the time consuming activities of al-Qaeda. What sick mentality!

And so you ask what do they propose America should do now? For one thing, they say at the beginning of the editorial they want to see the President address the issue at some point between his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech.

Then toward the end of the editorial, they lament the policy called “light footprint” which America has adopted with regard to what they call “committed terrorists.” And then, they conclude with this: “It's a dangerous world” which is the reason why they “hope that at John Kerry's … confirmation … at least one Senator presses ... deeper … about the threat of terrorism in the Maghreb.”

So here you have it, my friend, they say that talk by the President and deeper talk by a Senator should do the trick. Do you believe this? Of course not. Unconvinced of their argument, you ask yourself: Is this the story of the mountain that went into labor and produced a mouse? Or is it something else?

From the looks of it, the answer should be that it is something else. It must be that the editors of the Journal are serving notice on the members of both chambers of the Congress that they expect them to froth at the mouth deeper “pearls of wisdom” than they ever did before.

And my advice to the American legislators is to rebuff these lobbyists the moment they approach them. It is important to do so early on because if they succumb to the temptation even once, they will be drawn into a cesspool of horrific toxicity as would a baby that is pulled by its umbilical cord into the jaws of a monster whose habit is to never let go of a prey.

Satan Unveils Her Hand At Long Last

Imagine you are the parent of a teenager. One day, it occurs to you that you should check to see what your kid is learning in school. You spend an hour with him only to come out of the experience totally puzzled. All you can tell is that the kid's head is being stuffed with a great deal of something but you're not sure what that something is. It all sounds like a bunch of tangents going in a million directions, but the kid knows not how any of that connects, or that something is supposed to connect at all.

You go see the principal of the school and ask her to let you sit in the classroom so as to see for yourself how the teacher teaches the lesson. The principal grants you the request, and you go sit at the back of the classroom where 20 students, including your child, are taught. At the top of the blackboard, you see the inscription: Creative Ambiguity. Below it, you see a question with 4 possible answers marked A,B,C and D from which to choose one.

The teacher asks the students to raise their hand if they know the correct answer. A few hands are raised and the teacher points to one of them. The student says the answer is A. No, says the teacher, look at answer B. Hands are raised again, and the teacher points to one of them. The student says the answer is B. No, says the teacher, look at answer C. A few hands are raised, and the teacher points to one of them. The student says the answer is C. No, says the teacher, look at answer D. Hands are raised, and the teacher points to one of them. The student says the answer is D. No, says the teacher, you all missed the point of this lesson. Class dismissed.

You come out of there thinking to yourself this is not a learning institution but a mental institution where the inmates pose as educators and teach not creative ambiguity but authentic madness. Well, my friends, this is exactly what the rabbis did when half a century ago, they started posing as teachers. They set out to “educate” the North American public on Jewish sensitivities, then branched out to give lessons on everything that's in the universe of politics, religion, history, geography, motivation, clairvoyance and what have you.

The offshoots of those rabbis are now in total control of the North American media or close to that. Like their rabbi mentors before them, they pretend to educate the public about Jewish creative ambiguity and everything else which goes with that. Some of the offshoots even teach in real universities where they lecture on the moral clarity to be found in going in a million directions and get nowhere. One of these so-called professors is Ruth Wisse who has a teaching position at Harvard University, and writes an article for the Wall Street Journal once in a while.

Her latest article is titled: “What the 'Lobby' Knows About Animus for Israel” and has the subtitle: “The Jewish state, as the 'little Satan,' is a stand-in for the 'big Satan' and Western values.” It was published in the Journal on January 17, 2013. The first baffling thing you encounter in this article is right there in the title. At long last, Ruth Wisse admits she is writing on behalf of the 'Lobby,' something that was vehemently denied by the writers who used to take up the Jewish causes. They all pretended to be not an organized bunch but free thinkers motivated only by a morality that compelled them to get involved and clarify the ongoing narrative.

The approach that Wisse takes at the start of her article is that of: “No, the correct answer is not A but look at B.” Here is how she does it in her first two paragraphs: “The … process … to guide American … policy can … be used to clear up … confusion, What's at issue is not … affection for Jews or for Israel … The ... imputation of … Jewish influence … is less worrisome than [the] failure to recognize why the 'Lobby' exists … Never mind the Jews: Opposition to Israel camouflages … hostility to America.”

Great, you say to yourself, the rest of the article is undoubtedly meant to show how opposition to Israel camouflages hostility to America. You are eager to see how the author will demonstrate that the issue is not affection for Jews or for Israel (which was answer A) but that the correct answer may possibly be that opposition to Israel camouflages hostility to America – which would be called answer B. And so, you go on to read paragraph after paragraph hoping to encounter that magical moment when the elusive connection will pop up.

Alas, it does not happen this way because the author goes into a million different directions on a million tangents never to show how opposition to Israel camouflages hostility to America. To be sure, there is in what she writes everything you might encounter in the universe of politics, religion, history, geography, motivation, clairvoyance and what have you. But what you do not encounter is the reason why the Palestinians oppose the occupation as hinted by the author, if not promised by her.

The suggestion has been that the Palestinians do not see the occupation as a bad thing for them. Thus, it must be that Ruth Wisse is asking us to believe that the Palestinians oppose the occupation only as a way to hate America. If so, it must be that hating America is something that the Palestinians – if not all the Arabs do – to satisfy an unexplained genetic defect they were born with. After all, the rest of humanity has inherited the genetic defect of antisemitism, a phenomenon that remains unexplained to this day.

But unlike the mythical teacher we started with – the one that dismissed the class without drawing a final conclusion – Ruth Wisse draws the following conclusion in her last paragraph: “Chuck Hagel does not have to like Jews, but if he expects to defend the United States, he needs to understand the nature and scope of the war against Israel.”

What she is saying is what all of them in the Lobby have been saying for decades: It's not about America; it's Israel, stupid.

So says the handwriting done by a she-Satan on the payroll of Harvard University.

They Do It To Themselves Then Cry Foul

Suppose someone had written the following passage years ago: The Jewish leaders keep changing the narrative because a false picture of an epidemic of antisemitism distracts Americans from Jewish hatred and enshrines the Jews as the country's leading victim class, a strategy intended to intimidate citizens into remaining quiet about Jewish supremacism and lay the groundwork for granting Jews special privileges and protections at the expense of others. In short, anti-Jewish hate crimes are a powerful Jewish weapon.

Would you look at that passage and think that its author must have been clairvoyant because what he described has transpired in that exact manner over the decades? Well, you would be correct in thinking this, my friend, but for the fact that the passage was not written years ago; it was written only days ago, and written in a slightly different way. In fact, this is a paraphrase of what came in an article written by David Rusin and published on January 11, 2013 in the National Review Online under the title: “Hate-crime Stats Deflate 'Islamophobia' Myth” and the subtitle: “Islamists inflate the number of anti-Muslim crimes in order to silence critics.” Replace Jewish with Muslim and you will have the passage as it was written by its author. But what's going on here?

What's going on is the same old Jewish game of looking at themselves in the mirror, spotting the ugliness they inflict on the human race with their activities, then turning around and accusing someone else of what they see in themselves. What Rusin is doing in his article is use statistics not for what they may reveal, but use them as a pretext to make a point which is contrary to what logic would dictate.

The point that Rusin makes is this: “analysis of FBI statistics covering ten ... years ... reveals that, on a per capita basis, American Muslims ... have been subjected to hate crimes less often than other prominent minorities. From 2002 to 2011, Muslims are estimated to have suffered hate crimes at a frequency of 6.0 incidents per 100,000 per year ... blacks (6.7) ... homosexuals and bisexuals (11.5) ... Jews (14.8). Americans should keep these numbers in mind whenever Islamists attempt to silence critics by invoking Muslim victimhood.”

Well, I am not aware of Muslims attempting to silence critics by invoking Muslim victimhood but I am well aware of Jews attempting and succeeding to muzzle, even silence critics by invoking Jewish victimhood. I have been so muzzled myself, and silenced for a period of 40 years till the internet came along and gave me the opportunity to make my voice heard. But I am not complaining because I know I have been in good company with thousands of other people suffering more or less the same fate, including Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa and President Jimmy Carter of America whom the Jews have tried to silence to the extent that they could. And why do they do that? Because they say that criticism results in victimizing them.

This is ugly, and it is the ugliness that Rusin saw when he looked in the mirror. It is what he rushed and accused the Muslims of trying to do when, in fact, the Muslims tried to do no such thing. But while he was belaboring a fake argument, the poor thing made the point that should be clear to anyone with an IQ higher than his. The point is this: despite the wall to wall dreadful publicity surrounding Islam and the Muslims in America, and despite the wall to wall glowing publicity surrounding Judaism and the Jews in America, the rate of hate crimes committed against the Muslims is “59 percent lower than Jews” according to the FBI statistics that David Rusin has cited. Why is that?

Well, I have been answering this question for several years now – something I have done repeatedly on this website and elsewhere – without having the luxury of reliable statistics to prove my point. What I did, instead, was rely on observation and analysis. In fact, the point I have been making was simple. It is that people hate what they fear. And what people fear the most is what may be done to them in stealth. Yes, they will get angry and hate someone who will attack them openly, but will only hate till the anger subsides then forget about it. As to the one they suspect is damaging their interest in stealth, they will develop a visceral hatred toward him; a hatred that can only be made to subside by eviscerating that individual and his group from their community.

The examples I used to make my point were those of the ethnic mafia groups that have operated and still do in America. Such groups have ranged from the Italian and Irish mafias of decades ago to the Asian and Russian mafias of more recent times. In fact, at one time or another, America was at war with those nations while giving shelter to their citizens – all of whom could not be called exemplary characters. And yet, even at the height of the cold war, the American people did not hate or fear the Russian mafia as much as they hated and feared the glorified and “exemplary” Jews.

The reality is that the American people have treated the Russians in their midst with respect, and have extended that same courtesy to the Asians, the Cubans and the Muslims, all of whom were treated and still are with no more animosity than were the Russians, and a lot less fear than the fear they have of the Jews.

The one thing that remains constant despite the wall to wall glorification of the Jews is that the Americans still distrust and hate these people no matter the color of their skin, their ethnic background or the accent with which they speak the English language. But why is it that the people of America fear the Jews and hate them more than anyone else? The answer is this: Precisely because of the mentality that is displayed in the Rusin article.

No human being can bring himself or herself to tolerate a sight that is as horrifyingly mutilated as the spirit which is displayed by David Rusin. It is an atrocious sight.

People will forgive a kid who may attack them physically, and they will forget about the incident after a while. But what people will never forgive or forget is a David Rusin who would inflict on them the look of his spirit.

This is human nature and try as they may, no Jewish organization will ever change that.

Proof Positive That A Sea Change Is Coming

When something has been going in the wrong direction for a long time and needs to go through a sea change to get back to normal, such change seems to happen fast to an observer but the reality is that a great deal needs to happen imperceptibly before the visible transformation can actually materialize. A case study supporting this hypothesis comes in the form of an article written by Bret Stephens and published in the Wall Street Journal on January 15, 2013. It has the title: “Colin Powell's Double Standard” and the subtitle: “The former secretary of state offers a dubious defense of Chuck Hagel and his comments about the 'Jewish lobby.'”

The first question that comes to mind is the following: Why is it that Bret Stephens can write a column like this and still project a straight face knowing that it is worse than a bad joke? And the answer is that most everybody is still being polite, and still refraining from saying loudly that the emperor has no clothes. Well, I say it loudly that the emperor has no clothes. I have been saying it for sometime now, and the time has come for the sea change to happen perceptibly so that we may all get back to normal.

The truth is that the term Jewish lobby was coined by the Jews themselves to confuse the two identities: Jewish and Israeli, thus make the point that if you criticize anything Israeli, you attack all Jews which means you advocate their annihilation. This was the process that led to the term “Jewish lobby;” it is that the Jews created it to confuse the American people – which is an abomination by itself. But what makes it even worse is that they are now compounding the abomination by carrying on with a useless debate instead of tending to the needs of a nation requiring a great deal of concentration.

A sea change would mean that instead of Colin Powell apologizing for Chuck Hagel's use of the term Jewish lobby, calling it an innocent mistake when it is no mistake at all, and suggesting that Hagel could atone for his non-mistake by writing something on the blackboard – instead of any of this, Powell should say next time: Go ask the AIPAC people and those at the Anti Defamation League. I have neither the time nor the temperament to sit with you and stroke my intellect in the Jewish or Israeli style. I have better things to do.

And when the sea change will have happened, the atmosphere will be settled enough to rationally discuss the wisdom in having a bunch calling itself “children of holocaust survivors” make momentous decisions with regard to the use and deployment of America's military. The truth is that the office where Douglas Feith was operating did more to damage America, Iraq and the world than the Gestapo could ever do to damage the regime they served, or damage their European victims. Indeed, America and the world need a frank and open discussion about putting people who are so emotionally disfigured in positions where they can act out their darkest fantasies using the super military of a superpower. Feith and his gang were in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong things.

The Bret Stephens column then gets into an area which is so self-defeating, you wonder if the author means what he says or if he is deprived of as much as an iota of common sense. I grant you, he may be too young to remember the time when the rabbis used to get on radio or television and bray: “You can't compaaare, you can't compaaare” every time that someone tried to draw a parallel between Israel and another country, or draw a parallel between the Jews and another group of people. If he missed that episode, he should know that you can draw a parallel between situations which are close enough to be compared (like apples and apples, for example) but you cannot draw a parallel between situations which are too far apart (like apples and oranges, for example.)

Thus, for him to conjure up a hypothetical sentence about the African-American lobby intimidating people, to then argue that this would be the moral equivalent of saying the Israeli lobby intimidates people – is to compare something that happens with something that does not happen for one reason only. It is to say that what happens does not happen or to say that there is here a double standard. The fact is that the African-Americans do not have a lobby that pushes and pushes the way that the Jewish lobby pushes and pushes. The African Americans do not intimidate; the Jews do. Lying about this fact used to be the polite thing to do but no more because the sea change is about to descend on America like a tsunami. Nobody does what the Jews do, and it is now considered impolite to lie about this fact.

The same goes for the sentence about the hypothetical Kenyan senator. It did not happen that Senator Barack Obama recruited African-Americans and others to push and push the Congress to pass resolution after resolution in favor of Kenya or Africa. In fact, the truth is that members of the Arab-hating and Muslim-hating Jewish lobby were the ones who forever sought to recruit African-Americans, and get them to say or do the things that would spark a war between the Sub-Sahara and North Africa. And one of those they tried to recruit was none other than Senator Barack Obama who had the good sense not to get into this sort of criminal activity against humanity under the guise of engaging in a political or humanitarian activity. Only a handful of African-Americans fell for the ruse, and I am certain they regret it now.

Stephens calls a crackpot allegation a letter he received suggesting that the Jewish lobby was responsible for William Fulbright's defeat. Does he really believe that this is a false accusation? No, he does not. But whether true or false, he wants the world to believe it is true because it would prove that if Israel is the eunuch in the Middle East, the Jewish lobby is potent in America.

Of course Bret Stephens is neither utterly naïve nor utterly stupid. He must have been aware of what the Fox News Network (the sister publication of the WSJ) was doing during the last election campaign. It had a Jew or an Israeli come on a daily basis and warn right out that if Obama does not bomb Iran before election day, he will lose the election because in America, the Jewish lobby controls the Jewish vote and the Christian lemmings who were instructed by their pastors to worship the Jew. But they lost. They all lost and Obama won.

Nice try Bret, but reverse psychology isn't working anymore because the tsunami is coming.

Abrams Exposes Himself And His Community

On January 12, 2012 Elliott Abrams wrote an article that was published in the National Review Online (NRO) in which he discussed an article he had written on January 7, 2012 and was published in the Weekly Standard. This article is titled: “Mr. Hagel and the Jews,” while the discussion about it in the NRO has the title: “Questioning Hagel” and the subtitle: “Anti-Semitism or not, it's about the legitimacy of Jewish advocacy.”

It is evident from what Elliott Abrams is saying that the discussion about Mr. Hagel has been exhausted, and there is no need to go over it again or rehash any of its parts. What is left to do now is point out that Abrams has managed to do with two articles (written five days apart) what researchers could have only accomplished after spending countless days; even years researching something.

And that something would be the pattern by which the “organized Jewish community” as he calls it, exposes itself trying to have it both ways, then blames the consequence of its own action on a human race that the community says is suffering from a genetic defect called antisemitism. That pattern unfolds in the following manner. First, some members of the community make a slanderous accusation against someone. When the accusation is shown to be baseless, they counter by saying that it can still be proven true if someone would only ask “this one question” which they pronounce: this ooone question.

Thus, according to the members of the Jewish community, the unmasking of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth hinges on that ooone question being asked. It is just that ooone question, my friend, just ooone question. If only someone would ask it, they assert, the whole Universe will be illuminated and mankind will be saved.

And the ooone question that Elliott Abrams wants the senators to ask about Mr. Hagel during the confirmation hearing concerns his demeanor when he said something – which in itself is not considered antisemitic – but that his demeanor while saying it may well be. You see, it is not what he said that counts; it is how he said it. Get this piece of information out, and the whole Universe will bathe in a flood of light, they promise. After that will come eternal salvation; they want you to believe.

And look how else these people expose themselves. In his January 7 article, Abrams reveals his annoyance at the fact that “in the case of allegations of anti-Semitism, Hagel has not even apologized.” To be sure, such allegations were made by none other than Elliot Abrams himself and a few other characters like him. Then, in his January 12 article, he says this: “Senator Hagel used the term 'Jewish lobby' … for which he has now apologized. In truth I am not disturbed by this comment.” Does he like apologies or not?

Thus, what we see here is that Abrams and his community will hound you to get an apology for a comment you may or may not have made. If they get the apology, they will say that in truth the comment had not disturbed them in the first place. But if they don't get the apology, they will demand that you apologize, and will keep demanding till you do. In the meantime, they will justify their demand by throwing arguments which are accusatory, defamatory and absurd on their face.

This is how Abrams does that. Writing about the remark that Hagel made to the effect that he is an American senator, Abrams writes the following: “This remark … suggests that those who challenged his views have different loyalties.” What does he mean by “those” when Hagel was speaking of only one guy? What does Abrams mean by “challenged his views?” What views were these? Also, what does Abrams mean by “different loyalties?” The truth is that the Hagel remark came out this way: “this guy kept pushing and pushing. And he alluded to the fact that maybe I wasn't supporting Israel enough or something. And I just said … I'm not an Israeli senator. I'm a United States senator.”

This clearly demonstrates that there is a big difference between what Mr. Hagel said and what Elliott Abrams says Mr. Hagel meant to say. It also demonstrates that Abrams and his community will distort anything that does not suit them, and will do so to the point of putting words in the mouth of someone – words that he never said and never meant to say.

Thus what comes in the subtitle of the second article: “Anti-Semitism or not, it's about the legitimacy of Jewish advocacy,” may now be understood to mean that Abrams is sending a message to the senators who will be questioning Mr. Hagel. It is that Abrams is telling them if they don't find Mr. Hagel guilty of antisemitism or something close to it, they will forever extinguish the legitimacy of Jews to keep pushing and pushing till they get what they want. If this right of the Jews is extinguished, people like Hagel will keep making the claim that the lobby representing the Jewish community is trying to intimidate people like him. Horror of horror, this practice may then be curtailed as a result.

It is obvious that Elliott Abrams has reasoned in the darkest corner of his mind that if someone pushes back against the annoying Jewish habit, that someone may say something that could be interpreted as antisemitic, an occurrence that will turn him into toast on the spot. But if that someone only says things which are beyond reproach, he may say them with a demeanor that could be interpreted as harboring antisemitic tendencies. And the Jewish community will be able to seize on the occurrence and savage him anyway.

But for this to happen, the senators of the Armed Services Committee who will be questioning Mr. Hagel will have to crucify him now. If they don't, it will be the end of the Universe and the end of everything in it – which includes all of us.

When Speculators Attack Your Currency

Something is happening to the Egyptian Pound that happened to many currencies before it. The Pound is under attack by the speculators. Something like this happened in recent times to Turkey, to Russia, to Mexico, further down to a number of Latin American countries, and further East to a number of Asian countries. But more tellingly, it happened to the British Pound whereupon the speculator known as George Soros made a cool billion dollars in profit at the expense of the Exchequer without adding to the wealth of the nation as much as a grain of wheat, an ounce of meat or anything else.

Perhaps this is why the new governor of the Egyptian central bank flew to London only hours after being appointed to the post. Maybe he is there seeking to learn how the Brits handled the situation when it happened to them. Well, to attempt to understand something about what may happen in such a situation, we need to expand the discussion and talk about all sorts of speculative games that speculators play.

There are times when speculators must be thought of as financial sharks, and there are times when they must be thought of as vultures. The thing is that a shark is drawn to its prey when the latter gets hurt and bleeds, thus leaves a trail in the water for the shark to follow it all the way to the prey. As to the vulture, it can sense from high above that a potential prey is about to succumb to an injury or to exhaustion; even to hunger or to thirst. The vulture will wait for the prey to buckle under and when this happens, it will swoop down on it and start to feast.

Likewise, speculators will smell the scent of blood when a going concern gets into trouble and starts to bleed. Such concern can be a private enterprise or a government operating with a currency of its own. Like sharks, the speculators will swim to the prey as fast as they can and attack it mercilessly. At other occasions, the speculators will estimate ahead of time that a going concern is approaching the limit of its endurance. Like a vulture, they will observe it closely and wait for it to succumb. When this happens, they will make their move and start to feast.

This sort of drama unfolds all the time where hard assets or financial instruments representing them are bought and sold. It happens when the speculators who produce no wealth of any kind use the little that they start with – be it their own assets or be it borrowed cash – and rely on the turbulence of the marketplace to do transactions that allow them to make a gain.

Of course, they can also lose if they make the wrong bet; which some novices do and get out of the business in a hurry. But those who last in the business long enough to have mastered the game do very well in the long run. They do well not only because they know how to take advantage of the opportunities that present themselves but because they know how to create their own opportunities.

The speculators do so by “attacking” the instruments of the going concern. For example, if it is a company that is trading on the stock market, the speculators would short sell the shares, a move that drops their value – sometimes dramatically. The speculators will then buy back the shares at a fire sale price and make a profit. This can happen to a company that is healthy except that it was hit by something extraneous which may turn out to be real or be a rumor. In any case the short sellers, who may have been the originators of the rumor, will make their move and make a gain one way or the other.

At other times, a company would get into trouble because it had “bad luck” and its shares tanked on the stock market as a result. Eventually, the company solves its problems and gets poised to move up again which it does to some extent. But before it reaches the level where it deserves to be, something serious happens to the economy as a whole, and the stock market crashes. The company shares tank again even though its fundamentals remain solid. After a while, the economy recovers, the stock market goes bullish but the company shares remain tanked. Why?

This happens because the speculators know that the company shares are poised to make a dramatic move up. They are so greedy they want to acquire as much of those shares as they can before the upward move begins. But having sold their shares and remained without them for the duration of the bear market, the only trick they have up their sleeve is to short sell the shares they do not have thus scare the people who hold them and force them to sell. When this happens, the speculators buy what is being dumped at a dirt cheap price only to see the shares snap right back up like a slingshot. This is when they start to sell, making a very handsome profit in the process.

And this is what the speculators have determined is happening to the Egyptian economy at this time. They see it snap back like a slingshot, and wish to buy as much of it as they can. For this to happen, they want a cheap Egyptian Pound, and want the stakeholders of Egyptian assets to be so scared as to dump at any price anything they hold. The trick they employ is to “attack” the currency by dumping what they have (if they do) and what they don't have (which is more likely) in the hope that they will be able to buy back at a cheaper price.

Let us hope the governor of the Egyptian central bank will get good advice in London.