Structure Of A Sound Industrial Economy

At long last the Americans are turning their attention to their own problems rather than look to the rest of the world and pretend to fix everyone else's house at a time when theirs is sinking under their feet while crumbling over their heads.

America is talking about its economy in what looks like the start of a serious debate in search of solutions to problems that were in the making for a long time. In fact, Paul Ryan who is Chairman of the House Budget Committee has just released a budget in which he says: “Five years ago, we had a financial crisis. It flared up suddenly, though the tinder had been building up over time. And the damage was severe.”

Mr. Ryan is talking about the budget. No doubt the responses, the points and the counterpoints that will follow will also revolve around the budget. This is as it should be but it is only half the story because the tinder that built up has involved more than the mismanagement of the budget. It involved the structure of the economy where the deficiencies must be fixed or the troubles will flare again.

Like any other nation, America needs the wise management of its budget but also needs to maintain an industrial economy that enjoys a sound structure. What is that? And how do you get it?

If we start with the definition that a sound industrial economy is one that will withstand severe shocks of any kind and not crumble, we must set aside all notions relating to a transient performance the way that we do now when gauging the health of an economy. What we need to examine is the structure of the economy we have under consideration because structure is what decides how solid the base is, thus how well that economy will absorb the shocks that are sure to hit it again and again.

What we need to remember is that an economy does not have to be sound to perform well. It will do that at times, and do badly at other times depending on the external factors that surround it at that moment. The point is that nothing in a transient performance can tell you whether or not an economy will withstand the shocks that will come when you least expect them. Thus, the essential feature you must have in an economy for it to be sound is that it be well structured. If and when you have that, you may take into account the external factors that surround it, and manage it in such a way as to have it perform at optimum levels.

But what does it mean to have a solid base upon which to build an economy? The best way to answer this question is to visualize in our mind's eye the evolution of a hypothetical economy that began to industrialize at the start of the Industrial Revolution a little more than two centuries ago. The essential point here is that both the Revolution and the economy will have developed together as one and the same phenomenon. This says two things about it. First, the economy will remain at the leading edge of progress having no one to imitate or “steal” from. Second, it will depend on itself, will learn by trial and error, and learn from the mistakes it makes.

Imagine now a place called Europe where the ore of metals, especially iron, was discovered in the ground close to the surface. Shortly thereafter, a bunch of social drinkers who loved to make whiskey for themselves and for others discovered something by accident. While distilling the ingredients, they observed that when steam was allowed to build up, it acquired the kind of power that surpassed the power of the horse. Given that society had been using the horse to do work too hard for people to do, the lads who drank together thought they could combine the iron and the steam to whip up a new gizmo that will revolutionize the world.

They sat together, scratched their heads and talked about the thing. One idea led to another, and before long someone uttered the term steam engine. Yes, said another lad, let's build one of those and use it to pull not one chariot per horse but pull a whole train of them with a horse made of iron. And the next lad said, let's also use the steam engine to power the loom and all the textile machines they have in that building. And the lad after him said, we can also use it to power the machines that the carpenter keeps over there. And the lads raised their glasses, and they all drank to that – Scottish Whiskey, of course. Now tired, they slept on the idea, woke up in the morning and started to work on the steam engine they dreamed up the night before.

And this is where they hit a snag. It is that in order to build a machine of this complexity, they had to have the kind of tools and machines that no one had before. No one had them, in fact, because the lads were standing at the leading edge of technological development where no one stood before. And so, our lads found themselves forced to invent, develop and build the tools and the machines they needed in order to make the kind of parts that were never made before, and assemble them into the sort of engine that was never seen before.

What happened after that was that the lads and the multitude of people they attracted to their new enterprises worked to improve on the performance of the steam engine. To this end, they kept inventing and kept developing newer tools and newer machines they employed to produce a variety of other tools and other machines that were powered not by human or animal muscle but by steam engines that were specifically designed for the purpose. It is that technology had, at this point, come full circle doing a positive feedback on itself, thus grow in quantity and quality almost exponentially.

This sort of development is called organic because it mimics the way that nature develops new species. But the similarities do not end here because the two developments have something else in common; it is that neither will forget its past. For example, if you get inoculated against a disease, your body will learn to fight it now, and will fight it again many years later. In a similar sort of way, we can see that technology has revived the windmill to produce electricity in the modern era. This is a gizmo that was invented thousands of years ago to grind the grain that the ancient people used to make bread, and to grind the rocks which they used to make bricks and other building materials.

And there is another similarity between the two developments. It is that nature stores the legacy of its achievements in the DNA of living things. As well, the legacy of technological developments is stored on murals, books, discs and the other storage devices of the modern age. But while both of these are considered organic developments, there exists another form of development that is very different. It is one that can only be called artificial. It is practiced by the societies that missed the original Industrial Revolution and are now in the process of catching up with those that raced passed them.

Such societies have no indigenous industrial legacy that can be considered abundant enough or varied enough to build on and create a modern industrial state. Thus, they rely on the legacy of the more advanced societies towards which they look for ideas, and from which they buy the tools and the machines that go into the construction of their industrial bases. And because peoples and circumstances are different, some of these societies seem to succeed well while others seem to struggle endlessly. Why is that?

My view is that the societies that succeed at building a sound industrial base are the ones that mimic the path of development taken by those who started the Industrial Revolution. That is, they follow the organic method by developing widely enough and solidly enough at level one before going to level two. Once there, they again develop widely enough and solidly enough before going to level three, and so on.

Taking this approach, they do not do spectacular things to tell the world they have arrived. For this, they are rewarded with the fact that when the shock hits, they survive it and go on with their lives as normally as before. And this is because they would be standing on a construct that looks like a step pyramid – one that is as solid.

As to those who are eager to show off their early successes, they do the things that do not show they have arrived at a safe place but tell the world they have achieved something spectacular. It is like building tall towers with little at the base to keep them standing. If and when the shock hits, these societies suffer tremendously then spend a great deal of time picking up the pieces to rebuild from scratch.

And you do not need to be a newly industrialized nation to make those kinds of mistakes; you can be a nation that lost the edge to competitors but now seeks to re-industrialize. This is where America stands today, thus the need to consider the budget not as a stand alone subject, but consider it in conjunction with a full blown plan that will mimic the steps of an organic industrial revolution to fortify what is there already.

Replaying The Story Of Abraham And His Son

To borrow a phrase from the decade of the Nineteen Sixties, the editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) brought to the level of our consciousness something that was heretofore submerged deep into our subconscious minds. They did so in an article they titled: “The Not-Bluffing Bluff” and subtitled: “Iran gains more time to build nuclear weapons while the U.S. makes more concessions.” It was published in the Journal on March 9, 2013.

By coincidence, the editors of the New York Times (NYT) published an editorial the next day, March 10, 2013 that was not intended to be a response to the WSJ but could very well have been. It was titled: “Repeal the Military Force Law.” In it, the editors of the Times discuss a point of view that seems on the surface to be unrelated to the WSJ editorial but is, in fact, related to it at a deeper level.

Being in favor of seeing the United States embroiled in a war under a flimsy pretext, the WSJ editorial ends this way: “If Mr. Obama really weren't bluffing, we would be adding to our military … That we're doing the opposite tells Iran [we're] bluffing.” As to the editors of the NYT who do not favor seeing their country embroiled in “a war without end,” they end their editorial this way: “...as Jeh Johnson … said in a speech … 'War must be regarded as a finite, extraordinary and unnatural state of affairs' … The right solution is for Congress to repeal the 2001 authorization … repeal it now.” These are two diametrically opposed positions.

The Wall Street Journal makes no secret of the fact that it is more Jewish than the Pope can be Catholic. If someone doubts this, the editors of the Journal chose the week in which North Korea threatened to engulf America in a nuclear holocaust to badmouth not North Korea but Iran whom Israel chose to be its enemy of the day. Thus, the clash we see between the points of view of the Journal and that of the Times is really a clash between what America wants for itself, and what the Jews want for America. It is also what the Jews will want for the world when they will have secured America's submission, and have taken control of the superpower.

All of that prompts us to ask the following questions: What is it that makes the Jewish leaders tick so incessantly? And what do they want in the final analysis if there will ever be a finality to what they seek?

The truth be told that what the Jews want from the relationships they forge with non-Jews is encapsulated in the story of God, Abraham and his son. It is the story of a father who was asked to prove his unconditional devotion to God by being ready to murder his own son because God has so ordered. Likewise, the Jews expect their “friends” to be so devoted to them, they would put the lives of their children in harm's way to please the Jews and serve their causes.

Of course, people would be smart enough to avoid getting into a relationship with a Jew if they knew at the start what will be expected of them at some point in the future. This is why young Jews are taught at an early age to hide their ultimate aim when approaching someone new with the view of forging a relationship with him or her. The youngsters then spend the rest of their lives training, rehearsing and implementing the art of attracting new people to their never ending causes. They start the process with every new catch by putting him or her at ease with a saying that goes something like this: We are so much alike, I am certain we'll see eye to eye on every subject.

How that relationship evolves will then depend on the individuals who will participate, the community where the interaction will take place, the culture that will weigh down on them, and the country where it will all unfold. But the one thing that will remain constant is that the end of every run will be a horror story, as indeed it has been throughout the centuries of Jewish history. The way that history has unfolded for these people everywhere they went has been an endless replay of the same old sordid story.

History for them has been a series of backlashes taking place each time that ordinary people were pushed to the limit of their endurance, and were made so very angry at being so badly deceived. In everyone of those instances, the people felt that they gave too much of themselves to please the Jews, but the Jews never stopped insisting on getting more, and still more after that. And what the Jews wanted more than anything was that their so-called friends renew their love for the Jews each and every day by proclaiming as loudly as they can their infinite hatred for those whom the Jews have designated their enemy of the day.

This was the mentality that signaled to ordinary people everywhere on the planet they had been feeding a monster who will feed on them and their children no matter how much they gave it; no matter how much they tried to appease it. And these were the moments when the backlashes were triggered, and the people decided that the time had come to use against the Jews the very weapons that the Jews had given them to attack the enemies of the day. That was the power to hate, the weapon that no one designs and no one puts together as effectively as do the Jews.

Hate is their stock in trade; hate is the sea in which they swim like fish. They produce this weapon so effectively, and they make it so deadly that even they cannot escape its aftermath once it has been activated. This is the fate that the Jews have met everywhere they went every time they exploited the people who took them in. They always came on the wings of hate and they always perished by the force of that hate.

America may not be there yet in its relationship with the Jews or with Israel – the most cherished cause of the Jews – but America is close to that point. It has gone beyond the saying: We are so much alike, I am certain we'll see eye to eye on everything; America is now hearing the chant: They are so different from us, neither you nor I will ever see eye to eye with them.

Moreover, the Jewish leaders have gone as far as to say: There is room in this world for only them or us but not for both of us. Better you and us without them, which means we must finish them off – something we can do if you'll sacrifice your children for the cause. You will put the kids in harm's way to fight the enemy of the day who has been my enemy for some time and has become yours too as of this moment.

Unfortunately for America, the Jews had tackled someone that was never easy to tackle, to chew on or to swallow. Yes, they got superpower America to fight on their behalf but the enemies they tried to beat up were the Arabs and the other Middle Eastern nations. These people proved to be more than the Jews could grind down even when the jaws they employed were those of America and a number of allies who became so disgusted with the Judeo-American misadventures, they dwindled down year after year to near zero ally.

Let us back off as well from these misadventures, say the American editors of the New York Times. Keep fighting to the last of your children, say the Jewish editors of the Wall Street Journal.

The tug of war has started between those two camps, and you know which side I take.

He Sees The Comedy But Not The Plot Line

Charles Krauthammer has finally put his finger on something. In reality, it is not the whole of the thing but only a part of it. He did so in a column that is titled: “Why We Give Foreign Aid” and subtitled: “Aid to Egypt should be used to leverage a reversal of Morsi's repressive measures.” It was published on March 7, 2013 in National Review Online.

The first thing that a reader should do is disregard the subtitle because to rant that America should pressure Egypt on something is the obligatory ingredient that will get an article on Egypt published in an American publication these days. It is meaningless as well as comical, but this is not the comedy to which our esteemed author has referred.

Here is the passage (in condensed form) in which Krauthammer mentions the comedy he has detected: “John Kerry's objective was getting Morsi to apply for a loan from the IMF … there's a certain comic circularity to this demand. What kind of concession is it when a foreign government is coerced into taking yet more of our money?” He is correct in saying that there is a comical element here, but he fails to see the story line or the plot that moves it because he is missing something.

To get a sense of what is unfolding in that ongoing drama, we flashback two years to a time just after the fall of the Mubarak regime. Some of the ministers, among them a woman called Abul Naga, stayed for a while. She revealed that the American Ambassador in Egypt used to demand that the Egyptians accept the money offered to them under the guise of “aid” when in fact, it was a dirty slush fund set up by the Congress to buy potential traitors who could be called on to disrupt the country.

Well, John Kerry may not have been harboring a similar intent when he visited Egypt this time, but that old history is the reason why the opposition parties in Egypt, as well as the people who demonstrate in the streets – including the secularists and the Christians – would have nothing to do with a Hillary Clinton or a John Kerry. They told them off because at this time, the Egyptians would take a Trojan horse but not an American check, or even talk to a representative of the American government.

Had Krauthammer understood this plot line at the start, he would not have spent some 500 words regurgitating the useless points that everyone who is writing about the subject has been echoing. But there is something new in his column, and he begins to discuss it like this: “We have no particular stake in Egypt's economy.”

He goes on to make two more points about the economy: “Yes, we would like to see a strong economy … Why should we want a vibrant economy that maintains the Brotherhood in power?”

What that “Hegelian Dialectic” says is that Krauthammer has finally applied his intellect to research and to learn something about the Egyptian economy. He knows now that the engine of that economy (established, by the way during the Nasser era by a minster of finance called Dr. Qaissouny) is one of the soundest economic engines in the world today. It has served Egypt well in good times and in bad times.

As a result of his newly acquired education, Dr. Krauthammer now knows that it is futile to sit back or to lie down, and daydream about an Egypt that will disintegrate economically. Therefore, in keeping with the old saying: if you can't beat them, join them – he has developed an alternative.

But that is where he makes a mistake. Look what he says: “Our concern is Egypt's policies, foreign and domestic … If we're going to give foreign aid, it should be for political concessions … We give foreign aid … to extract … concessions.”

The man may no longer be dreaming about the Egyptian economy floundering but he is dreaming about controlling it. Unfortunately, however, this is too Jewish an idea to be viable.

Try the principle of forging friendly relations with the world, Charles. It may work better for Israel and for the Jews everywhere.

Zeno Has Caught Up With Them

Do you remember the old Zeno paradox? It's a question that goes something like this: Would you believe someone that says he is a liar? The answer being a yes or a no, neither would make sense, hence the paradox. Zeno is an ancient Greek philosopher who dabbled in the logic of absurdities. The absurdity of this example comes from the fact that neither answer would make sense for the following reasons:

First, a YES answer would make no sense because if you believe the liar, it means you believe he lied to you saying he is a liar. If so, it means he is telling the truth. But if he is telling the truth, he is not a liar. And he cannot be a truth teller and a liar at the same time.

Second, a NO answer would make no sense either because if you do not believe him saying he is lying, it must be that you believe he is telling the truth. And if he is telling the truth about being a liar, he must be a liar. And you cannot believe that he is lying and telling the truth at the same time.

The modern version of this absurdity is the Jewish AIPAC warning to the journalists, lawmakers and politicians of America: You say we intimidate you and you're toast. Would you be intimidated by this warning?

This being more of a dilemma than a paradox, it engenders the question: Would you be so intimidated as to deny you're intimidated? Or would you defy the Jewish warning and admit you may have been intimidated in the past but you're intimidated no more, and you prove it by standing up and fighting back?

This is what Chuck Hagel did and won the fight. Now comes Daniel Pipes and does what Jews are famous for; he whines over the waning of the old order and its replacement by a new order. He does that, and he cries out for the return of the old order in an article he published in National Review Online on March 5, 2013. It has the title: “When AIPAC Went AWOL” and the subtitle: “The Hagel nomination shows how ineffective the pro-Israel lobby has become.”

The best thing about the Pipes article to the people who are interested in studying the Jewish mentality in America is that it drips with absurdities like nothing I saw before. Look how the author starts the presentation. I have abbreviated it for the sake of clarity: “Chuck Hagel claimed that the 'Jewish lobby intimidates.' Then a strange thing happened: AIPAC did not lift a finger to influence the vote.” He seems to say that there is a difference between “influencing” which he claims is what AIPAC does, and “intimidating” which is what Hagel claims AIPAC does.

Well, let us go along with Pipes and accept this splitting of the hair. It would mean we accept the notion that influencing the course of events is a normal thing to do, therefore there is nothing strange about it. We now consider the Hagel response to AIPAC which is to accuse the organization of something. And this accusation caused the organization to do “a strange thing,” says Pipes. Strange being abnormal, we must ask: Did Hagel intimidate or did he influence?

According to many Jewish pundits who speak in the name of the Jewish lobby of which AIPAC is the umbrella organization, Hagel has proven to harbor a latent form of antisemitism by his pronouncements. Thus, the question: Which is more daunting? To accuse a person of antisemitism or to accuse an organization of intimidation?

Pipes goes on to explain that one of the reasons why “AIPAC's initial logic made sense is: why antagonize a very powerful figure [Obama]? As Steven Rosen explained, AIPAC also did not want to antagonize increasingly skittish Democrats [including Senator Charles Schumer].” The use of the word skittish means that somebody was spooked. Was this influence or was it intimidation? Has powerful Obama intimidated less powerful AIPAC?

The author continues with this: “a search into Hagel's record found more ugly statements about Israel.” Is it beautiful to call someone's remark ugly? But what did Hagel actually say? He said that Israel's aerial bombardment of Lebanon was a “sickening slaughter.” Even if this feeling is exaggerated, is it appropriate to call it ugly? But it could not be exaggerated because Hagel is a war veteran who knows what a slaughter is when he sees one.

Look now how Pipes has described what Israel was doing: “Israel's self-defense against Hezbollah.” This is an example of how these people get away with throwing paradoxes. They talk about savagery but call it self-defense; it's as simple as that. And they say it is fair game to bombard a civilian population as long as they claim to be fighting Hezbollah; it's no more difficult than that.

The absurd logic goes on and on for another 500 words to culminate with this: “The age of Obama and Hagel needs the robust AIPAC of old.”

Dream on, Danny boy, dream on.

Digging Their Own Graves Yet Again

Despite the tendency in Christianity to represent the devil as having a physique that looks like the human body with added features borrowed from the animal kingdom such as a tail and two horns, all the religions I know of, and all the philosophies that I studied, do not give the devil the image of someone committing evil deeds by himself. Instead, they give him the image of someone who endlessly urges human beings to do the evil acts he wants done in furtherance of the grand schemes he secretly develops in his mind.

When you combine this representation with the other human tendency which exists in every culture for creating metaphors by attributing to a person or a group of people characteristics that belong to objects or to animals, you get the human disposition to consider the devious and the whispering mischief-makers among them as being the devil incarnate – the worst that a person or a group of people can be.

This explains why people of every race, every culture and every religion have throughout history come to regard the Jews as being the embodiment of the devil – the Satan that refuses to exorcise himself out of human affairs and disappear. If history is not clear as to why the inclination called “antisemitism” rose in Europe and has endured for two thousand years, what happens today should shed enough light on the subject to satisfy the skeptics among us that the Jews always brought it on themselves with the way that they have behaved and the way they treated others.

You get a sense of this from the article written by Jeff Jacoby under the title: “Yes, Europe, Hezbollah is a terror group” and published in the Boston Globe on March 3, 2013. Here is the sentence that is key to the concept we are discussing here: “For years the United States has urged Europe to designate Hezbollah a terrorist entity.” The fact is that in a nation of 300 million people, you could not find one in ten who would know if NAFTA has to do with Canada, Mexico or Venezuela; and you could not find a fraction of one percent who would know if Hezbollah has to do with Mali, the Vatican or the station whirling out there in empty space. The people of America are too busy and too distracted by the exigencies of life for that.

The truth is that America as a people has not been urging Europe to designate Hezbollah one thing or another. What happened instead was that the self proclaimed leaders of the Jewish groups that have infiltrated the American system of government whispered, nudged, blackmailed, bribed and pushed their way into positions where they were given the means to do a number of things on their own. Once in position, they used their authority not to do what was good for America but to urge the Europeans to do the evil deeds that will serve the grand schemes secretly developed in the minds of the Israelis and those populating the Jewish organizations.

There was a time when a request like that coming from America would have automatically elicited a nod of approval from the Europeans, and from other countries. But things have changed because the world now realizes that those who speak in the name of America do not represent the people of that nation. They are the handful of Jews who gained dictatorial powers in what still pretends to be a democracy. And they have at their service the shameless lackeys who will say yes to anything they order them to do.

And so, once again, the Jew has become the devil incarnate in the eyes of the human race except that this time, the truth will not be distorted or hidden from history. It shall stay as a reminder that what is wrong with this planet is not that humanity has persecuted the Jews but that the Jews have consistently poisoned the waters for humanity, forcing it to respond appropriately some of the time, and respond savagely some other times.

When you read the Jacoby article, you notice two things. One, he relies on dropping the big name of Winston Churchill to support the main point of his presentation. Two, he relies on a list he calls “roster of terrorist attacks that Hezbollah is known or strongly believed to be responsible for.” Well, Churchill is dead now, and no one can speak in his name or tell what he would have said with regard to what happens today.

As to Hezbollah, it came into existence as a result of Israel's repeated encroachment on Lebanese territory to steal the waters there before invading the country. It destroyed a big part of Lebanon and occupied a good chunk of it for a number of years. While there, it recruited a number of lackeys who committed unspeakable atrocities – right out of the Jewish Old Testament – against unarmed men, women and children.

Thus, it shall remain clear to history, now and forever that Hezbollah was formed as a natural response to Jewish aggression, and was successful in the end at kicking the Jews out of Lebanon. No wonder Jacoby hates that organization as much as he does.

But Hezbollah is not the only organization formed as a result of Israeli activities. Another organization called Hamas came into existence, this time as the direct result of Israel's own handiwork. In fact, Hamas was formed by Israel to be a group of lackeys that would do to the people of Palestine what the Lebanese lackeys did to their people in Lebanon. But the Hamas recruits proved to be no lackeys at all when they turned around and kicked the Israeli army out of Gaza.

Unlike the past that may not have been clear for a while, the work that the Jews have done in Palestine and in Lebanon defines the kind of work that is normally attributed to the devil. This is the reason why human beings have throughout the planet and throughout time, regarded the Jews as being the devil incarnate. This is so clear now that no one can refute it.

It is also inevitable that sooner or later there will be a critical mass of Americans who will come to regard the Jews in that same light. When this happens, it will be watch out time for them – and no one at this time can tell how it will all end.

Full-Throated Bark To Defend The Democracies?

Get this, my friend, the bunch of clowns calling themselves “Foundation for Defense of Democracies” are asking for an apology from the Austrian authorities, and they are calling on “a great many world leaders [to do] a more full-throated condemnation” of something. Apparently this is what these clowns do to make themselves believe they are defending the democracies – the ones that are in existence today, and the ones that are expected to materialize in the future. But what's the apology for? And what's the condemnation about?

Well, you'll know what that is when you read an article that's written under the title: “The U.N.'s Anti-Semitic Alliance” and the subtitle: “The Turkish prime minister's recent slander about Zionism occurred at a U.N. organization event.” Published in National Review Online on March 1, 2013, the article was authored by Claudia Rosett who is with the above mentioned Foundation serving as journalist-in-residence. She also heads what they call the Investigative Reporting Project – whatever that means.

In any case, the occasion for this latest tempest is that “the prime minister of Turkey delivered a speech in which he called Zionism 'a crime against humanity' – equating it with fascism.” And what seems to gall Ms. Rosett the most is that the prime minister was “thanked and applauded” by the attendees. Apparently the clowns of the Foundation want to control not only what you think and say, they want to control how other people react to what you say. Do you now see why it is thought that the prime minister of Turkey was generous when he equated Zionism with Fascism? When he did so, he elevated Zionism a notch to the higher level of Fascism.

That incident unfolded when at the end of February in the year 2013, the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations met in Vienna, the capital of Austria, a meeting it holds every year somewhere in the World. This being the Alliance of Civilizations, the prime minister of Turkey saw it appropriate to denounce Zionism which is recognized the world over as the most uncivilized movement plaguing the human race today.

For the record, what the prime minister of Turkey did this time is something he did previously at another forum, and did it in the presence of the president of Israel, Shimon Perez. It happened that the latter was denouncing terrorism without mentioning that Jewish terrorism was the most lethal of all, and that Israel was the base from where all acts of terror were originating. Yes, some responses may have come from elsewhere but they would not have come at all were it not for the fact that the original acts were committed to begin with.

Responding to Shimon Perez, the Turkish prime minister spoke his mind with honesty and with clarity. This caused a spat between him and the president of Israel who was sitting beside him. And the relationship between the two countries has been going downhill ever since. Yet, the Rosett article says this: “it was left to a private monitoring group … to blow the whistle on Erdogan's remarks.” Hey miss, get it through your head once and for all that nobody blows the whistle on something that is said honestly, clearly and in the open by honorable men and women who speak their mind freely in a forum of civilized people. The cloak and dagger stuff, and the hush hush come from where you come, not from where the civilized members of the human race come.

Rosett goes on to write disparagingly about the Vienna meeting, mentioning the celebrities of the diplomatic circuit who were in attendance – among them Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general on the UN; Irina Bokova, the director general of UNESCO and Ali Akbar Salehi, the Iranian foreign minister. She tells of the history of the Alliance, pointing out that it was launched by former secretary general of the UN, Kofi Annan “for the purpose of 'bridging divides.'”

She then asks: What exactly is this U.N. Alliance of Civilizations? And she answers the question by giving a historic rundown of an organization whose stated purpose is to promote global “respect and tolerance.” But you know immediately that she is not going to praise the Alliance because she quickly throws at it the biggest insult you'll find in circulation today. What she does is accuse it of being a matchmaking service between – get this now: “the left wing of Western politics and … the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).” There, my friend, it is that damned left wing again! Are you horrified yet?

Still, Claudia Rosett cannot hide the fact that the Alliance has had a number of great successes. And so, she reports on this reality by first asking a question in a mournful tone: How is it that the otherwise obscure Alliance seems to attract so much top brass? Sadly, however, she does a poor job at explaining how the organizers went about doing their work to succeed as brilliantly as they did. No doubt, the young aspiring organizers of the future who will look for an example to follow will be unhappy with her shortcoming.

Perhaps the reason why she performed so badly in this endeavor is that she did the thing that Jews always do – which is that she viewed and she explained everything in material terms. In fact, not once in her response did she attempt to explain how the message of bridging the divides was spread so widely and so expertly by the organizers of the Alliance, that the top brass from around the world were attracted to it. Instead of attempting to do what was expected of her, she used nearly 500 words to write about the most favored subject of the Jews: money, money, money. And that's how she ended her dissertation.

Here is a taste of that: “For … $4.08 million … what Turkey has paid into the Alliance … since … 2005, Erdogan was able to stand … before a world audience, and denounce the Jews.”

Fair enough but wait a minute! Wait a minute! Did you realize what just happened here? Look what the woman did. She came right out and reported that Erdogan stood before a world audience and said what he wanted to say. She thus admitted that the whole thing was done in the open, and this prompts the question: Who needs a whistle blower in a case like this?

Given that this reality contradicts the impression she tried to give earlier, you can only conclude that these people have a lot to learn about being truthful with themselves and honest with their audiences. And they have a lot to learn about a world that runs on moral principles more than it does on the principle of money being the prime mover of everything that happens.

If and when they will have learned this much, they will be ready to join the club of civilized peoples and civilized nations.

In the meantime, they should perish the thought that they can defend the democracies by barking one thing or another, or by having someone else bark it for them. What they should do instead is seek to reform their ways to avoid being dumped into freight cars yet again, and shipped to concentration camps.

This has been their history everywhere they set foot on this planet, each time they tried to adapt the world to their ways instead of adapting themselves to the ways of the world.

It's been bad for them and bad for humanity; let's not have anymore of that. Let it be: Never again.

The AIPAC Kool Aid That's Killing America

A number of years ago, a weird cult leader took a hundred or so California followers to a jungle spot in the far away Continent of South America under the pretext of serving a cause that did not exist. One fateful day, he had them consume a drink that was popular among children called Kool Aid. What the followers did not know was that the drink was laced with poison, and so they all died upon drinking it – men, women and children.

The same has been happening to America but the culprit this time is AIPAC, a massive organization having a worldwide reach. The victims who are sent to die in far away battlefields for a cause that does not exist are the children of the hundred million families who constitute the American population. Those among them who survive the horrors of the battlefield return home with physical and/or psychological scars that no one cares about, and the youngsters end up in desperate straits both socially and financially. Many of them prefer to die than be forced to live this life, having consumed the AIPAC Kool Aid not knowing what it was – and so they commit suicide.

But how did AIPAC manage to reduce superpower America to this trivial state of being? Well, in the same way that confusion was the tool of the California cult leader, confusion has been the tool of AIPAC, a trick it uses adroitly by activating the best suited sleeper agents it has – be they Jewish or non-Jewish – to get on the available megaphone and spread the poison among the people who will be most advantageous at serving whatever cause the Jewish leaders of AIPAC may have; noting that they have at least one ongoing cause at every moment in time.

You see how this works when you analyze two articles that were written by two sleeper agents and published by different megaphones. The First has the title: “What is Egypt” and the subtitle: “As America's new secretary of state arrives in Cairo, it's still not clear the United States knows what it's dealing with.” It was written by Steven A. Cook and published in Foreign Policy on March 1, 2013. The second has the title: “How Iran Went Nuclear” and the subtitle: “Veteran weapons inspector Olli Heinonen on how the U.N.'s 'Stockholm Syndrome' has aided Tehran's drive for the bomb – and why an unsettling secret may be lurking in the Iranian desert.” It was written by David Feith, an assistant editor at the Wall Street Journal, and carried in that publication on March 2, 2013.

The first thing that happens when you start reading the Steven Cook article is that you feel like being hit in the face with a baseball bat. Brace yourself, my friend because here it comes – “an old talking point: The United States and Egypt … enjoy a 'strategic relationship.'” And you scream: America and Egypt were in a strategic relationship?” When did this happen? How is it that we never heard about it before? How come it was always that America had only one strategic ally in the Middle East: Israel, eeesrael and only eeeeesrael. Was it Egypt all along, and no one said so? How was eeeeesrael dragged into this? And why?

But then the writer has the gall to lament: “Yet for all the talk of common interest and close alignment, few can define what this actually means.” Well, there is only one thing you can do with a guy like this: Hey Steve, get this through your thick skull – the few who can define what that means are those who bother to read the sane publications that do not carry your articles. But the guy still disappoints you, my friend, because he goes on to do the insane things he has been doing all along; the things that define his career. Look at this passage: “President Barack Obama has worked hard to keep relations between Washington and Cairo on track … but where exactly is that track supposed to be leading?” You wouldn't know, Steve, even if it were knocked into your head with a hammer.

Still, he goes on: “It is not all clear that the President knows.” So you ask: Not clear to whom? To you, Steve? It would not be clear if it were poked directly into your eyes. But he goes on to explain why it is not clear to him: “When Hosni Mubarak visited Washington … Obama fell back on platitudes … three years later … Obama averred that Egypt was neither an ally nor an enemy.” Hey, Steve, they always fall back on platitudes when a dignitary comes to visit even if it's a dog from Tel Aviv who comes pissing on the White House rug then goes to the Congress where he gets 29 standing ovations. Relations fluctuate all the time because nothing remains static. It is called life; something that is alien to the brain dead and the intellectual zombies of this world. Are you one of them?

He goes on to argue: “If Egypt is not an ally and is not an enemy, then what is it? No one knows.” But he immediately admits that someone knows or at least believes they know. However, this being an assertion he does not like, he quickly attacks it. Here is how that went: “American officials have engaged in … circumlocution … journalists and think tankers asked an America official … what the United States wanted in Egypt. He replied, 'We want whatever Egyptians want' … Such a statement was disingenuous – what if Egyptians want to break the peace treaty with Israel?”

Here it is, right here in the view of this reanimated zombie, the only thing that the Egyptians are allowed to want or to reject are the things that pertain to Israel, only eeesrael and nothing but eeeeesrael. He wants Egypt to be a mirror image of that cesspool of horror they call the Congress of the United States of America.

Having described history the way that pleases the AIPAC people, he now does a “Fast forward to 2013” where he argues that “Americans are still groping when it comes to Egypt.” He puts in a thousand more words to basically say that as far as America is concerned there should be Israel, only eeesrael and nothing but eeeeesrael. But he does a Freudian slip somewhere along the line admitting that: “what didn't work out while President Dwight Eisenhower and Nasser were in power became reality under Richard Nixon and Anwar Sadat [who] had come to believe that only Washington could provide the resources Egypt needed in its ceaseless quest for modernization. The U.S.-Egypt strategic relationship was born.”

Kaboom! Here it is. He finally admits there was a strategic relationship between America and Egypt, one that resulted from Egypt's ceaseless (that's CEASELESS) quest for modernization. But Steven Cook, together with the journalists of his ilk, the think tankers of the Washington cesspool and all the barking dogs out there, chose to hide that fact because it would have revealed that Egypt was pursuing modernization. On the contrary, what the sickly dogs were barking was that Egypt and the nations of the Middle East were rejecting modernization to opt instead for a permanent state of backwardness. And this was the reason, according to them, why to America it should be Israel, only eeesrael and nothing but eeeeesrael.

In the meantime, they sought to “bomb those countries into the stone age,” something they tried to do on a few occasions. It is what they are trying to do again with Iran, a topic that brings us to the David Feith article.

Whereas the Steven Cook piece shows how the existing confusion worked in the past and how it is influencing the present, the David Feith piece shows how confusion is conceived and how it is put into action. As can be seen, the title alone is meant to convey the impression that Iran has gone nuclear in the sense that it now possesses nuclear weapons. The subtitle then reinforces that impression and goes beyond it to suggest that “an unsettling secret may be lurking in the Iranian desert.”

So then, what do you do if you are a David Feith and you want to convince your readers of something that has been discredited over and over again. Well, you find a veteran weapons inspector and you conduct an interview with him. You look for something in what he says that may sound mysterious; and you build on it to make it sound like the mystery continues. Meanwhile, you create a fantastic narrative around all that but make it sound like it is the narrative of the man himself. And voila, you have a piece of charlatanism that will sit well at least with the zombies of the American Congress, which is all you need for now.

Here is how the narrative begins: “President Obama revealed the existence of the secret Iranian nuclear facility at Fordo … Is the world due for another surprise? … If anyone has standing to speculate, it is Olli Heinonen, who says he first 'got a whiff' of Fordo six years before Mr. Obama acknowledged it.” This done, Feith sets aside the expert to tell his own narrative – telling it as if it were coming out the mouth of the man himself.

Here is how he does that: “A native of Finland, Mr. Heinonen ... message is a grim one for a grim time. In February alone, North Korea conducted its third and most successful nuclear test; Iran announced plans to install advanced centrifuges that could speed its uranium enrichment by 200%; satellite photos published in Britain's Telegraph newspaper suggested that some operations have begun at the Arak facility; multilateral talks with Iran mostly yielded plans for more talks (again); Iran rebuffed America's offer of direct talks (again); and the Senate confirmed as defense secretary a man who couldn't articulate whether the U.S. intends to prevent an Iranian bomb or live with it.”

The fact is that Heinonen said nothing about a grim message in a grim time. And he said nothing about North Korea, Iran, satellite photos, multilateral talks or the Senate confirmation of a defense secretary. Nor does Feith make that claim directly. However, the way that he juxtaposed the notions gives the reader the impression that he did. And when you get to the end of the article, those notions are reinforced once again.

Here is how the author does that: “An afternoon with Mr. Heinonen provides a sobering counterpoint to happy talk from the Obama administration about 'a world without nuclear weapons.' Mr. Heinonen, in his engineer's uniform of tie and short-sleeve button-down shirt, maintains a certain equanimity about world affairs. Yet the parade of horribles rolls on.”

Confusion about Egypt, confusion about Iran and confusion about the Middle East in general, they were all designed for one reason only; to keep America away from everyone else so as to depend on Israel alone which, in practical terms, means to depend on AIPAC and World Jewry.

This is not the dictatorship of a minority or that of a majority; it is the dictatorship of a cult of death embodied by the Jewish organizations that brought horror and destruction to mankind since the beginning of time.

Egypt and Iran are two of the founding nations that have launched the human race on the path to civilization. By contrast, those who call themselves Jews, and have made that claim for two thousand years, are the charlatans that mankind keeps unmasking for what they are; the characters that give each episode they launch a horrible ending then blame it all on mankind, accusing it of having a genetic defect called antisemitism.

America would do itself and its young a big service by staying away from these horrible things, and away from their Kool Aid instead of staying away from those they accuse of being the opposite what they really are.