The fail-safe Obama Doctrine

When you command a military that has the power to blow up the planet several times over, you work a fail-safe system into each plan you prepare for current use and future uses. You also update the systems on a regular basis to keep up with the times. This done, you wrap the whole thing into a strategy which is itself protected by a fail-safe system that will trigger automatically when set to operate according to program, or be overridden manually if necessary.

In fact, this is the best that anyone can get, and it is what America has got from President Barack Obama who is Commander-in-Chief of the American military. Obama does not run around revealing the strategy to everyone that asks; he works with his plans everyday, and the result is there for all to see. But not everyone likes what they see for one reason or another, and this is why a confrontation ensues once in a while such as the one described in the article that was written by Doyle McManus under the title: “What Americans really want in a foreign policy” and published on May 4, 2014 in the Los Angeles Times.

McManus describes a scene in which a Fox News reporter asked a dumb question and received a presidential kick in his behind. The question was this: Are critics wrong to say that America's global position is marked by “weakness”? Well, it was never clear which critics the reporter had in mind. In addition, the word “weakness” was never defined. And so, having no clarity on these two points, the President gave a general response that would cover the presentations given by the dozens of psychopaths who get invited to the Fox network each day. When there, they spew lunatic fantasies about the sick desires they hold in their hearts and minds to see the full fury of Armageddon realized at long last.

Despite the transparent nature of the Fox satanic little games, McManus called the President's response testy. But given what prompted it, anyone that is blessed with a grain of sanity should be able to understand why a Commander-in-Chief holding the lives of 7 billion people in his hand would responded as follows: “Most of the foreign policy commentators that have questioned our policies would go headlong into a bunch of military adventures. Proponents of what I consider to be a disastrous decision to go into Iraq haven't really learned the lesson of the last decade, and they keep on just playing the same old note over and over again.” Testy be it if that's what it will take to make the point clear.

This is where McManus crosses from laying the groundwork for his presentation to opining on the events. He begins this segment with the following: “there are two problems with what the president said.” McManus explains that the critics did not demand that America go to war in Syria or Ukraine; they only wanted to see American weapons sent there, he says. And to this, there can only be one response:

No,no,no ... No, Doyle McManus, they wanted to see Syria bombed and that's an act of war. They also wanted to see America train the Ukrainian army and supply it with weapons. That's a territory closer to Russia than Vietnam ever was. And you know something, Doyle? That's the first time, as far as I know, that the expression “mission creep” was coined. The Americans went there as advisers, and ended up sending home nearly 60,000 body-bags as well as hundreds of thousands of broken bodies and broken minds. It was mission creep like the one that the critics are now asking for.

Moreover, these so-called critics are not really critics but advocates who push an agenda that is going contrary to the will of the American people. To achieve their goal, they keep inventing historical events that never happened so as to create fictitious precedents. And the supposed historical events they create are to the effect that past presidents have discharged their presidential duty by motivating the public, and by leading a reluctant nation to war. Those presidents did it, goes the fake story, by using the bully pulpit to transform the mood of the public from one of apprehension about the war to one of enthusiasm for it. And the advocates who posed as legitimate critics looked forward to seeing Obama follow a similar pattern.

This is why the Fox reporter kept stressing something that McManus has cited as being the second problem with Obama's response. Here is how our author put it: “The second problem is that the president ducked the critics' chief complaint: that his aversion to all forms of military intervention has emboldened malefactors like Vladimir Putin and Bashar Assad.”

It is clear that the attempt here is to accuse the President of something he is not, then use the effect to shame him. The image they sought to create was that of someone who failed to act like the strong leader an American president ought to be ... which is why bad guys are proliferating throughout the world, they contend. In their eyes, Putin, Assad and all those like them are here because Obama is here. And those critics who are, in truth, but one and the same with the so-called Fox journalists want the world and Obama to see the situation the way they see it. Fat chance, and they know it.

It seems that by the time McManus had reached this point, he lost confidence in what he was writing. Lacking energy, he sought to buttress his argument by quoting Robert Kagan who wrote an article about polls that – in his view – contained a paradox. Well, I actually saw that article when it was first published a few weeks ago, and deemed it unworthy of a response. I shall not waste time commenting on it now.

The essential thing to retain from all this is that the Obama doctrine is a fail-safe doctrine. When the strategy works, it does well. When it fails, it causes minimal damage if any. After a century of wars during which time America went from being the triumphant darling of humanity to being a pariah in every neighborhood, Obama found the correct formula to heal the wounds and give America a better place on which to stand.

But as always, to heal a wound means to expose it. When this happens, those who wish to see it healed express dismay at what they now realize was hidden from them all that time. Those who do not wish to see it healed plot to sabotage the effort.

The noise is getting louder as the evil ones throw darts at Obama while screaming their displeasure at the fact that America and the world stand with him, cheer him on and wish him good luck.

We'll just have to endure till the mission is truly accomplished, and the evil ones are vanquished for ever.

Score keeping no Way to gauge Progress

On May 2, 2014, there appeared in the New York Times an article written by Steven Rattner under the title “End Corporate Taxation.” When you read it and separate from it all the other considerations, you come away with a few notions surrounding the reality that the big corporations are increasingly becoming international. It is happening because these entities are owned by shareholders from different countries; they produce goods and services in several of them, sell everywhere and, when they find it advantageous, move their head offices to a country that offers a lower corporate tax rate.

Rattner analyzes the situation and makes a few recommendations – the most “ambitious” being to end corporate taxation in an effort to keep the head offices in America. You think along the lines of the recommendations and find yourself moving in circles on the same flat level till something that you saw a couple of days before flashes in your head. It interrupts the line of thinking you had adopted, and takes you in an entirely new direction.

What flashes in your head is an article that was written by Mark J. Perry and published on the website of the American Enterprise Institute on April 30, 2014 under the title: “Despite China's impressive growth, on a per capita basis, the US economy is still a century ahead of China.” And so you wonder if it means to you now what it meant when you first read it. A couple of days ago, you thought it will take China – if not a century – a long time to catch up with America. But now that you know America is being hollowed out of its head offices the way that it was of its manufacturing base, you wonder if what you assumed then holds true today.

One passage in the Perry article that shook you is this: “More than 30 million Chinese, basically the population of Texas, live in caves.” You did not attempt to make a comparison then, but now that comparison is forced on you, it is what you do. Thus, recalling that China's population is about five times as large as America's, you wonder if there are not 6 million homeless Americans who would be glad to find a cave in which to live permanently rather than have to hop from living on the street one day, to living under a bridge the next day, to living in a subway tunnel the day after that? Would a cave not become sweet home to a homeless vagabond?

Another passage in the Perry article that raised your eyebrow when you first read it is this: “The US remains the world's leading economic power due to its technological innovation.” This reminds you of a saying that lawyers never forget. It is this: “Argue the law when the law is on your side. Argue equity when it is not.” It seems that the analog of the economists is this: “Argue the GDP or the per capita income when they are on your side. Argue something else when they no longer apply.” This time, Perry is using technological innovation as the preferred yardstick. Tomorrow he or another economist will use something else.

In fact, that something should be not another yardstick of the same kind but another prism through which to look at reality. This means we must drop the habit of comparing snap shots against snap shots. The fact is that the future keeps coming because things keep changing. And the part we tend to forget is that things change not separately from each other, but change more and more in conjunction with each other. And this is taking place because the world is getting smaller all the time – what happens in one place affects many other places then feeds back to the origin and moves from there into new directions.

Therefore, we can see that corporate head offices moving out of America (mostly to Europe) at a time when factories were moving into the emerging economies (mostly China) was no coincidence. It can only be that directly or indirectly, one phenomenon has led to the other.

So the questions: Will it ever happen that corporate head offices will start moving into China? Will it ever happen that research facilities will move there too? Come to think of it, that's not a matter of if; it is a matter of when will it happen? The obvious answer is that it will happen gradually as the developing world becomes more developed, and the Earth becomes flatter by the day.

And this is why we must adopt a new way of thinking with regard to our relationship with the rest of the world. We need to get away from the policy of confrontation and the policy of forcing our views on others. We need, instead, to get into the mode of consultation and cooperation with everyone.

Only then will we be able to create a system of sustainable growth that will work for all of us.

A World in permanent Transition

A funny thing happened to Richard Haass. He wrote an article and saw it printed in the American Interest, and after adaptation saw it reprinted in the Wall Street Journal. The American Interest took up the article on April 20, 2014, gave it the title: “U.S. Foreign Policy: In troubling Disarray” and the subtitle: “The Obama Administration must prove to America's allies that it is competent to lead.” Ten days later, the Wall Street Journal took up the article and gave it the title: “A Foreign Policy Flirting With Chaos” and the subtitle: “The most egregious case of fecklessness has been on Syria. Doubts about American dependability were raised far and wide.”

When two publications of that caliber take up and print a non-syndicated article, you can be certain the article represents a sizable swath of the American chattering elite. But as demonstrated by the titles and the subtitles chosen for it, the message is that America finds itself out of step with the world. Is this true? Or is it a perception shared by an American group that is itself out of step with the American public and the world? To explore these propositions, we need to go to the most fundamental of fundamentals – the concept of time.

We are all transients because we come, we live our lives and we depart. This is true for us as individuals; it is true for the culture and, in a broader sense, true for the species. What this means from the practical standpoint is that every moment of our existence is one of transition. If a change occurs between one moment and the next, we detect tangible proof of the transition and call it progress or chaos depending on our disposition. If no change occurs, we call it stability or stagnation ... again depending on our disposition.

From the moment that our species began to think till the advent of the theory of Relativity, it was believed that time was unchanging. Relativity proved otherwise, and the phenomenon of elastic time is now used in practical, technological applications. This being science, it is not to be confused with the psychological phenomenon of feeling that time is moving fast when we are happy, and moving slowly when we are sad or bored. We go through these moments as individuals when getting on with our lives, and we go through them as a collective – be that a family, a tribe, a nation or a species.

Each of us as individual has a level of tolerance for enduring boredom or sad times. This also applies to cultures in which most individuals appear to be on the go all the time, or appear comfortable living a lethargic sort of existence. And this is where the notion of length of time becomes crucial for, even someone that is always on the go will tolerate a minute or two of lethargy. By the same token, someone that enjoys living a lethargic existence will want to see a little change once in a while.

As long as the individuals or the collectives only mind their own business and no more, little or nothing happens. But when areas of interest begin to overlap, and they encroach on each other's turfs, what is progress to one may become chaos to the other, and what is stability to one may become stagnation to the other. A tug of war usually erupts between the factions at which time one of several possibilities may result. These vary from the factions learning from one another to them competing peacefully against each other to them fighting for turf and influence – each seeking to impose its preferences on the other.

To get back to the Richard Haass article, we see the description of all those forces at work in a turbulent world, and we get the sense that the American administration is confused about what to do with it. So we wonder if this is the case in reality, or it is that Haass finds it difficult to separate what he sees happening on the world stage from what he judges to be the administration's response to the unfolding events.

Look how he starts the presentation: “American foreign policy is in disarray. The result is unwelcome news for the world, which depends upon the United States to promote order in the absence of any other country.” Well, there are enough inaccuracies here to flabbergast 95 percent of humanity which considers the UN, not America to be the body that promotes order in the world – and only when it is summoned to do so.

But then look what Haass says a few paragraphs later: “history shows that ousting leaders can be difficult and … extremely hard to bring about alternative authority that is better for American preferences.” Is he saying the world depends on the United States to oust leaders and bring about alternatives that suit American preferences? Phew! What a self serving revolting pretense! Who do these people think they are?

And now, look how he ends his presentation: “We are witnessing a movement where governments [have] reduced regard for U.S. preferences. Such a world promises to be messier, and less supportive of American interests.” Notice the rewrite of the last sentence to appear in the WSJ as: “Such a world promises to be even messier, and less palatable for U.S. interests, than it is today.” Written either way, it means that America is not doing the world a favor; it is doing it for itself … or is it? After all, there remains the big question: Who is America's self?

Mindful of the total paralysis which plagues the country when it comes to serving the interests of the general population, and comparing that with the frantic energy which is devoted by all the parties to serve the interests of Israel and the Jews, you conclude that America does not belong to Americans; it belongs to the Jews and to Israel. When America speaks, the world hears not I, American; it hears I, Israeli or I, the Jew.

That situation came about thanks to both the overt and the stealthy work of the Jewish lobby in America which managed to shred the lives and careers of the dissenters that tried to oppose it while infiltrating the strategic positions in the country, and taking them over. Meanwhile, the Jewish lobby in America being no more than an arm of World Jewry, a similar phenomenon was duplicated on the world stage where the main beneficiaries have been Israel and the moguls who may live anywhere in the world, yet make Israel their second homeland if not the preferred one.

Haass hints at the role that Israel plays in the wider scheme of things. But before making his point as clear as it can be, he first seeks to justify it. To this end, he writes: “The administration's commitment to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is difficult to justify … The emergence of a Palestinian state wouldn't affect the troubling events in Syria, Egypt or Iraq.” What? Was this the goal of the charade they staged about giving the Palestinians a state of their own? Was it simply to affect the neighboring states?

This being the reality, you seek to find out who might have been the intended beneficiary of that satanic charade. So you keep reading: “The one vital undertaking in the Middle East pursued energetically is to place a ceiling on its [Iran's] nuclear capacity and potential … ratcheting up sanctions against Iran. The challenge will be to come up with an agreement that is enough for Iran and not too much for us and for Israel.” This then has been and remains the intended beneficiary. It is Israel, only Israel and no one but Israel.

Besides that, did they get America to do more for Israel? Yes they did. In fact, it was to serve Israel that America intruded in the affairs of the Middle Eastern nations, messing them up and breaking its own back in a way that cannot be repaired. And yet, America had evidence all along to the effect that there was a better way to doing things. Now that the Jewish method has failed, Haass tells all about the better way, and cites the reasons why America must now go back to it: “There is a good deal of evidence, including Chile, Mexico, the Philippines and South Korea, that gradual reform is less expensive, more likely to result in an open society, and less likely to result in death.” Only now do they admit this? What a crime!

Sadly, the Jewish lobby made America shelve this better way in favor of bombing Israel's neighbors, bribing them, corrupting them, plotting against them and coercing them into doing things in line with Jewish demands and Israeli interests. This is why the nations of the world do not want to see America anywhere near their neighborhood. It is also why the American people want to concentrate on building their country rather than build up Israel by destroying someone else. And this is why Israel and World Jewry are frantically calling on America whose back is already broken to do more of the same old, same old till it breaks its neck too.

And yet, in the middle of this avalanche of crimes, the current administration has managed to extricate the nation from two wars, avoid getting dragged into another one despite the temptations and the pressures to do so, and worked with a cool hand to rescue the economy from a depression that came knocking not only at America's door but the door of the whole world.

Who could ask for more?

Sincere Economist making wrong Argument

Stephen Moore is a passionate human being who speaks from sincere conviction, but he refuses at times to take all the available facts into consideration before reaching a conclusion. He has done it again in the article he wrote under the title: “Obama's $2 Trillion Deficit” and the subtitle: “That's how much bigger the economy would be if we'd had a Reagan recovery.” It was published on May 1, 2014 in National Review Online.

He explains the $2 trillion mentioned in the title this way: “if the economy had grown as fast under Obama as it did under Reagan … [it] would be more than $2 trillion larger today.” Later in the article, he backs off a little from that position and clarifies what he meant to say as follows: “I'm not saying that the economy would be … $2 trillion bigger if Obama had gotten it right. But even if we had had an average recovery, the economy would be $1.4 trillion larger today. These kinds of counterfactuals are impossible to prove.”

But it would be a pretty fair bet; he goes on to say, if over the first five years of Obama's presidency “we had done Reaganomics, not Obamanomics.” He explains his view as to how the two theories of economics work, highlighting the differences between them. He attributes good success to Reagan and a lesser one to Obama, emphasizing that Reagan applied supply-side economics while Obama relied on Keynesian approaches.

What Stephen Moore has ignored in all of this is the fact that the full force of globalization made itself felt during the Obama presidency, when it had only just started during the Reagan presidency. Moore only alludes to what happened in this regard, not to factor this reality into the discussion but to strengthen his argument for Reagan and against Obama. This is how he put it: “I would say the wreckage that Reagan inherited from Nixon-Ford-Carter might well have been worse: Obama didn't have to deal with 14 percent inflation 20 percent mortgage interest rates, an America that was rapidly deindustrializing...”

Had he taken these realities into consideration, he would have avoided falling into the trap of reducing his contribution to the debate down to the tiresome chicanery which flows from the supply-side versus demand-side arguments. He would have asked the question: What happened during that era which caused the American economy to perform so badly? Moore would have answered the question, and then bumped into the next: Yes, the Reagan response brought a strong recovery, but did it have such a long term negative effect that it resulted in the crash of 2008; the one that Obama had to grapple with?

To answer the question as to what happened; he would have said that America was deindustrializing because globalization was starting. At the same time, the price of commodities was rising because of two reasons. First, the Vietnam War was making America gobble up natural resources at unprecedented rates. Second the unhappiness of the Arabs with America's foreign policy gave them the incentive to hike the price of energy.

Bumping into the question as to the merit of Reagan's response, Moore would not have escaped the conclusion that to make up for the loss of industrial production in the private sector, Reagan stimulated America's industrial base by borrowing from local and foreign sources, and spending the money on government purchases of military hardware. Horror of horror, this would have sounded more Keynesian than supply-side to Stephen Moore.

But was this Reagan Keynesian approach that led to the crash of 2008, and the developments that followed? Most likely not because the underlying causes that led to the difficulties of the Seventies have remained the same throughout. They were then, and they continue to remain the fact that the underdeveloped nations are industrializing and crowding the industries of the advanced nations ... America included.

Let's now look at some numbers. Moore mentions a study done by the Congressional Joint Committee which I don't have, so I'll take as the basis of my calculations the value $1.4 trillion dollars he has cited, and the value of the current GDP which I estimate to be $16.6 trillion. Doing the math, it says that over the past 5 years, the economy lost an average of 1.63 percent growth. This comes to about $282 billion loss of production per year. It is a loss in goods and services of which 11 percent is in manufacturing. That would be $31 billion a year.

That is, if Americans had reduced their appetite for imported manufactured goods by that amount, they would have maintained the growth rate that Stephen Moore is yearning for. He should be writing about this, not about economic theories that do not apply in the current conditions.

He ignores old Debates to dismiss Apartheid

If you ever encountered the expression “confident ignoramus” and thought it was too oxymoronic to represent someone that really exists, let me assure you there is at least one such character that's alive and well. He is proudly flashing his ignorant ideas with a confidence in his own infallibility that only a pope of the socio-political variety can boast.

His name is David Harsanyi, and he wrote an article under the title: “The Real Problem With Kerry's 'Apartheid' Myth” and the subtitle: “The Obama Administration's stale anti-Israel canard.” It was published in the Federalist online magazine on April 29, 2014.” As the title indicates, that writer has taken up the subject of apartheid to say not only that Secretary of State, John Kerry made a mistake using the word, but that the situation is worse than meets the eye because apartheid is a myth and a canard perpetuated by the Obama administration.

After about a thousand words displaying the full array of his truth telling prowess, he ends the presentation by hitting the readers with something he wishes they will never forget. He tells them that the work done by Kerry can still serve the purpose of uniting the Palestinians – which he suggests they will be glad to do in an effort to blame their misfortunes on the Jews.

Of course, Harsanyi knows that no one will believe this story because the people who would read his work are the sort that watches the Fox News channel where no Palestinian commercial has ever appeared begging Christians to donate a 25 dollar box of food because the Jews did them in. On the contrary, it is a Jewish rabbi who comes on the screen all the time, and begs for that kind of donations, blaming the misfortunes of the Jews on the Palestinians.

So you ask: What's that confident ignoramus, David Harsanyi, up to? And you read the rest of the article to see for yourself how a brain that is endowed with the ability to turn reality upside down to such an extent, actually works. The first thing you see him try to do is dispel what he calls the Obama canard about Israel. Okay, there is a canard, he says, but what's it about? And he tells you it is about Israel's future inability to be both Jewish and democratic.

But you know your history well, and you still have it fresh in your memory that what he calls a canard is no canard at all. It is the inevitable result of the demographic trend in the region following its natural course. This is something that has been debated to exhaustion in Israel for more than a decade by all sorts of people, including former prime ministers. Everything was said during those debates except for one: nobody cast doubt on the notion that Israel will have a non-Jewish majority at some point in the not too distant future.

And this is where you realize it would be an exercise in futility to ask whether David Harsanyi was aware of those debates, or whether he ignored them to make a false presentation. The fact of the matter is that in Judaism there are no truths and falsehoods rooted in reality. There is what's convenient which they call truth; and there is what's not convenient which they call falsehood.

Given the current circumstances, the author of the article finds it convenient to call the Kerry remarks “scaremongery,” and so it becomes the truth for now … until further notice. But for this to be, he must dismiss a decade of Israeli debates on the subject, as well as the conclusions that they reached. No problem with that because this is the Jewish way of doing things. If someone will dare contradict it, they will be called antisemitic, and there will be attempts to destroy them personally and professionally even if they are Secretary of State or President of the United States. Just ask Jimmy Carter, and now Kerry and Obama.

Having dismissed the Israeli debates, and having attributed their conclusions to Kerry and to Obama, he explains there are problems with those conclusions. He says that the math does not add up, but does not explain his own math. He only says that someone obscure debunked the earlier findings which – he was saying only a moment ago – were a myth and a canard invented by Kerry and Obama who, by the way, never did the math. Still, he concludes that “the demographic time bomb, in other words, is a dud,” and you conclude that his logic is so mutilated; it can only have the Star of David stamped on it. It is Jewish through and through.

Believing in his own mind that he has created an argument as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar, he confidently describes the state of the current situation in Palestine, and what it can be made to look like in the future. He says: “No Israeli government has seriously considered annexing the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. Israel can offer limited autonomy to Palestinians.” Well, well, well, forget about his prediction that the demographic time bomb will turn out to be a dud, what he just said is a bomb that is definitely not a dud. He said “limited autonomy” which – you know means what? It means apartheid by another name. Kaboom! The truth may come out the mouths of babes, but they also come out the mouths of the confident ignoramuses.

The poor thing went through all this trouble to say there is no Jewish imposed apartheid in occupied Palestine to then offer “limited autonomy” as an alternative to the occupation, not realizing it is another way of saying apartheid.

Jewish Deniers of the Palestine Apartheid

Judging from the way that the echo repeaters of the Jewish propaganda machine reacted to the prediction that the apartheid in occupied Palestine is bound to suffer the same fate as the one that existed in occupied South Africa, you can tell that these people carry in their hearts and minds apocalyptic images planted there by an upbringing that is as toxic as the one inculcated in Hitler's Youth long ago.

The difference between then and now is that Hitler was a lone and clumsy mouth whereas the Jewish machine to hate, invite mayhem and cause destruction, has many outlets from which to broadcast its demonic message. It also has holocaust memorials in many places around the world to twist, mutilate and deform the hearts and minds of the young and the innocent … most of whom are Jews.

You can see a reflection of this sort of upbringing in an article by his daddy's boy, John Podhoretz, written under the title: “Idiot John Kerry's 'apartheid' comment backfires”. It was published on April 29, 2014 in the New York Post. This kid is so mutilated inside, he does not realize that the words he used to start the article gave him away like a skunk that was hit by a car, abandoned to rot on the highway and left there to stink the neighborhood.

Unable to think up an insult big enough to suit the occasion that grew out of all proportions in his deformed intellect, he states: “John Kerry has never been so insulted in his life! Oy, the insult.” He then discusses a point that tells what it is he really fears. To understand how this works, it helps to recall that all societies do get into trouble once in a while. What they do to help themselves endure the hard times ahead, is use the strong points of their culture to construct a psychological crutch on which to hang on till the storm passes.

This has never been the case with the Jews, however, whose continued existence depends not on the crutch they construct from points in their parasitic culture, but on the commitments they get from the host on whose body they feed with shameless and merciless appetite. To highlight this point, the little boy, John quotes Mr. Kerry as saying: “I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned.”

But instead of expressing doubt this will be enough to allay the Jewish fear that America's support is waning, he challenges Kerry like would the little punk you catch urinating on your lawn. You chase him out of your backyard, and once safely out of your reach, he turns around and throws at you his baby talk: “Oooooh. He won't allow it! … Oh, yeah? Hey, look at me, John Kerry. I'm questioning it. What are you going to do about it, tough guy? Windsurf over me?”

Still, John knows very well that this will not scare the Secretary of State, so he runs to hide behind the skirt of the girl next door who was a colleague of Kerry in the Senate. From that position, he throws another challenge at Kerry: “After you're done, you'd better windsurf over your former Senate colleague Barbara Boxer. Last I looked; she was a Democrat like you.”

As if this were not enough, Podhoretz has another rabbit he can pull out of the hat. It is someone that currently works for Kerry at the State Department on antisemitism issues. He is a man that used to head the national Jewish Democratic Council, an outfit that recently issued a statement expressing disappointment that Kerry uttered the word apartheid.

The little boy is now beginning to feel he is winning the confrontation with the big guy but he does not see him flinch. What to do? Well, he imagines a scene in which: “No wonder you're whining [John Kerry]. But then, you just love to whine these days, don't you.” Well, to be fair to the boy, it must be said that he has a reason – valid or not – for saying all those things. It is that Kerry complained to Netanyahu about the insult one of his cabinet ministers threw at the American Secretary of State.

Okay, got that part. But what really is the Podhoretz point in all of this? It is that for every whining sound made by Kerry, a million whining sounds were made by those who bellyached the use of the word apartheid. Which, in the eyes of the world, means that John Kerry alone is a million times better than all the Jewish pundits put together.

He saw apartheid where there was one. They denied the apartheid they themselves created. He is good; they are bad.

The Truth behind the fake Ire on Apartheid

Thousands of volcanoes have erupted at the same time in thousands of Jewish bellies because John Kerry used the word 'apartheid' in relation to the occupation of Palestine by Israel. Yet, apartheid means nothing more than the fact two groups of people are made to live apart from each other … which is the current reality in Palestine.

Moreover, Kerry did not say that apartheid exists now or that it will happen for sure in the future. He simply said that it could happen if certain conditions materialize. And this is no more serious than the idea floated in the past to the effect that sooner or later Israel will have to choose between being a democratic state or a Jewish state. It was an idea brought up by the Israelis themselves, and debated at length by pundits and politicians alike, including several Israeli prime ministers. The idea was discussed continually and extensively till one day, they all stopped mentioning the word apartheid. What was it that caused this abrupt change?

In that debate, studies were brought to light showing the reality that the demographic trend in Israel and the occupied territories was working against the possibility that Israel will continue to have a Jewish majority. And these studies prompted some people to accuse the Palestinians of launching the war of the bedrooms, having lost the war of the battlefield to the Jews. Regardless of what was said, however, the accepted conclusion remained that the developments on the ground will accentuate the image of Israel as being an apartheid state.

And believe it or not, that prospect did not deter some people from professing that they were comfortable living with the possibility. These were the people who adhered to the Alan Dershowitz doctrine that Israel had the right to do to the Palestinians anything that anyone had done or was doing to someone else on this planet. South Africa was an apartheid state; it was calling itself democratic, and was doing very well thank you. Thus Israel, which had its hand in the American treasury, and had the American congress tucked away securely in its pocket, could become like South Africa, and tell the world to take a hike.

But then something big happened in that the apartheid regime of South Africa collapsed abruptly. Sensing a bad omen in that occurrence, the confident Israelis and their Jewish friends who used to feel comfortable emulating that regime began to panic as superstition was slowly replacing their confidence and their comfort. Apartheid was also becoming a bad word in many circles and many languages, a development that prompted the Jewish hierarchy to decree that from now on, anyone associating the word apartheid with Israel will have to be labeled antisemitic, and will have to be opposed with volcanic vehemence.

In addition, the demons of World Jewry fetched from a hellhole known to them only, a two-bit charlatan and bestowed on him the title of expert in one thing or another. They had him approve a study that was no study at all but was a work of cheap fiction. It showed that the demographic trend in Israel and the occupied territories argued in favor of the place retaining its Jewish majority no matter what the Palestinians did in their bedrooms.

And many Jews rejoiced as they believed in the self-deceptive notion that if they lie about something long enough, and if they make enough people profess to believe in it, the lie will become reality. Thus, the idea of calling people antisemitic for associating Israel with the apartheid regime will have to be sternly enforced, and turned into a movement similar to that which put people in jail for denying the Holocaust.

These people reckoned that if they can scare people enough so that no one will dare associate Israel with apartheid or suggest that Israel will lose its status as a Jewish majority state, the looming problem will solve itself. This is because according to the tenets of the superstitious Jews, the universe will arrange itself in such a way as to make demography work in their favor.

The end result will be that unlike South Africa where apartheid died, Israel will be able to retain apartheid – even if that must be done under another name – and still call itself democratic.

To give the universe a hand arranging itself in a way that will serve them, the operators of the Jewish machine of lies and propaganda have ordered their echo repeaters to repeat the lie that John Kerry apologized for uttering the word apartheid when, I fact, he never apologized. What are they aiming for now?

In the meantime, they wait to see what tomorrow will bring. And so do us.