A Pile of rotting Meat poisoning America

No, this is not beef or pork or chicken or turkey; it is a thing called Tom Cotton. Apparently, he is a human senator representing an American state in the upper chamber of the federal legislature called the senate.

This guy is doing his part to kill America economically the way that food poisoning kills unwary guests at a reception. This is why the metaphor of Tom Cotton being a pile of rotting meat fits him exactly right. In fact, his latest action is that he “moved to block confirmation of a nominee for an important post at the Department of Treasury.” He could not have chosen a deadlier way to attack the American economy.

The quote above is from an article that came under the title: “Cotton Puts His Foot Down on Iran Deal,” written by Lee Smith and published on April 21, 2016 in the Weekly Standard. The article also offers a link to a video clip that shows Cotton on the floor of the US Senate proposing the blockage.

To understand how activities like those of Tom Cotton and his ilk have the potential to add up and form the critical mass that will implode the American economy, we need to understand a few things about America's economic situation in the world today.

There was a time when the global production of goods and services (known as wealth) was small compared to the value of the precious metals – mostly gold but also silver – that were mined and traded, or were kept in bank vaults. For this reason, the fiat money that was printed to represent the wealth of a nation could be backed by gold. For example, the American dollar was said to be as good as gold because the Treasury kept enough gold in storage to exchange the paper currency for gold at a fixed rate to anyone that demanded it.

But then, the Industrial Revolution developed past the steam engine and started to use other forms of energy conversions such as internal combustion and electricity. Now, instead of producing goods – from perishables such as food, to durables such as building materials – exerting 100 watts an hour of human energy or 750 of animal energy, machines were used to mass produce those goods expending thousands of watts an hour of mechanical and electrical energies.

This meant that the machines were now producing hundreds of times more goods than ever before for every consumer on Earth at a time when the population was increasing exponentially. That situation created the need for an increase in services such as education and healthcare – all of which ballooned the size of the economies. But while the amount of goods and services produced globally was exploding in size, the amount of precious metals that was mined remained fixed, even began to diminish in some places.

The result has been that the price of the precious metals went up, but that was not enough to cover the amount of money that was printed to reflect the size of the goods and services now produced. This made it so that the currency could no longer be backed by gold. In turn, this made it imperative to link the strength of a currency in each jurisdiction to the health of the economy that is underlying it, and to the amount of foreign currencies that the central bank can accumulate.

This is where the vulnerabilities of the American economy become apparent. First of all, because of history, the American dollar became the currency that everyone trusted. This meant that in international commerce, the dollar became the currency with which every seller wanted to be paid. The dollar thus became the reserve currency for all nations.

As trade grew globally, new international financial institutions were set-up to act as clearing houses and facilitate that growth. Because the dollar occupied a preferred position, the American financial institutions came to dominate their international sisters. The result has been the creation of a virtual central bank for the world. Call it a “Cloud Central Bank” that considers the economies of all the jurisdictions to be a single global economy. And it is this worldwide virtual economy, not the American economy that underlies and backs the value of the US dollar at this point in time.

This development gave America unprecedented powers, but like the saying goes: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Unfortunately, America got corrupted. Even before Tom Cotton was born, America had started to abuse its newly found influence around the globe. Urged by local ideologues and by Jewish fanatics, America was putting the squeeze on countries like Cuba, the Soviet Union, Egypt, the nations of Latin America and others in an effort to force these countries to bend to the will of America's ideologues and to Jewish fanatics.

This prompted the nations of the world – including America's allies – to look for alternatives to those institutions and to the dominance of the American dollar. China has made a great deal of progress in this regard, pulling other nations around its vision for a new world order. The day will come when the American economy will be considered the only valuable that's underlying and backing the US dollar. Given that it is a fifth the size of the world economy and getting smaller in relative terms, you can imagine what will happen to the dollar.

Add to this what Tom Cotton and his likes are doing, and you'll realize they are causing more damage to America in one day than China could in a year. Indeed, every time a senator blocks a nomination to have something done the Jewish way, the world regards him as another American adolescent holding the gun to his mother's head so as to force his father to give his Jewish buddy what he wants.

The performance of Tom Cotton nauseates people around the world so badly; he looks like a pile of meat left to rot in the gutter of a decaying city.

Liar, Liar is funny but where's the Lie?

On April 20, 2016, the foreign minister of Iran, Mohammad Javad Zarif, published an op-ed in the Washington Post. On the same day Reuel Marc Gerecht responded in the online edition of the Weekly Standard.

The Zarif piece came under the title: “Why Iran is building up its defenses”. The Gerecht piece came under the title: “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire,” and the subtitle: “A response to Foreign Minister Zarif”.

You read the two pieces to see what Zarif said that might have prompted Gerecht to say he lied. You find that Zarif did what he promised he'll do, but not Gerecht. Whereas Zarif explained why Iran is building up its defenses, Gerecht responded to something that's inside his head, not something that's out of Zarif's pen. And this should prompt you to shout: Where's the lie, Reuel? Who's the actual liar, Reuel?

The point that Zarif makes is that the people who were agitating against the nuclear deal – recently concluded between Iran and the (P5+1) nations – are back again pulling the same old tricks. Using mantras like “all options are on the table” and “never again,” these people have tried – and they continue to try – dragging the region into yet another disastrous war, even a nuclear one if they can.

There should be no doubt who these people are. They are the self-designated hawks in America, such as the Jewish neoconservatives and the Israeli agents who whip the congress of fools to sponge on America's largess. As Zarif further explains, they are also: “Others [who] have been less blatant.” These would be the Gulf States – including Saudi Arabia – that “resorted to a rapid build-up of their already excessive military hardware”.

These are the reasons why Iran is building up its defenses, says foreign minister Zarif. To start his presentation, he mentions the “artificial crisis over my country's peaceful nuclear program.” And this is where Gerecht saw an opportunity to attack him. In doing so, he proved to be one of the self-designated hawks who continue to try dragging the Middle East and the world into disastrous wars.

The undeniable fact is that because the nuclear deal has been concluded, even the hawks admit that Iran's nuclear program will remain peaceful for at least 15 years if not forever. Thus Zarif was correct in describing it as a peaceful nuclear program. The question is this, however: “Has it always been peaceful?” Those who wish to move on with their lives, cooperating with everyone to build a global structure for peaceful coexistence, will say that the question is now moot, and we must put it behind us once and for all.

But that's not the case with those who wish to continue dragging the world into wars. Gerecht is one of these, and he has a very thin ground on which to stand when making his case. It is that he invokes a foggy past that's based on “a dossier, which has included information provided by defectors cataloging the regime's nuclear weapons ambitions since the late 1980s.” Sounds impressive but...

But the Americans have learned long ago (when dealing with defectors from the old Soviet Union and from Iraq) that they were nothing more than self-serving leeches who took the Americans for suckers, selling them false information for good money. And there is no reason to believe that the so-called Iranian defectors are more honest or more reliable than the charlatans who preceded them.

Sensing that he stands on shaky grounds as he throws accusations based on hearsay and not concrete evidence, Gerecht tries to redeem himself by pointing to something that's concrete. It is this: “Iran's ballistic-missile program makes absolutely no sense. Nations that have striven to develop long-range missiles inevitably have married that effort to the development of atomic warheads”.

These were China, India and Pakistan who developed their nuclear arsenals and did not use them to this day because their utility has been to stand as a deterrent. It is that the old doctrine known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has come into play once again. Well, given that the Jews of Israel and their megaphones in America keep threatening Iran with all options being on the table, the Iranians would be justified to try and build their deterrent force if they so wished.

They may not want to do it, but they would be prudent to try and become a threshold nation in the relevant fields. They owe it to their people whose existence is constantly being threatened by the Jews and by America.

To make sure that Iran is not forced to resort to that option, the option to do mischief must be taken away from the Jews and from America. This will be done when humanity will make it clear it knows that the Iranians will remain the civilized nation it has always been, that the Jews will remain the biblical savages they have always been, and that they exert maximum effort at this time to fashion America into their horrific image.

The Neocon desperate Effort to remain relevant

With the Pax Americana dream dying out, the Neocons who spawned it do not see a practical way to revive it at this time, and so they don't try. In fact, their most pressing preoccupation right now is to remain viable as a movement, and they realize that this can only be done if they identify problems they'll pretend they can fix. But what if they don't find any such problem? Well then, they'll just have to make them up.

This is what the so-called “Working Group on Egypt” did when it commissioned two fantasy articles, and had simpletons affix their signatures to them. Both articles appeared on April 19, 2016, each in a different publication.

One article came under the title: “Egypt Extends Campaign Against Dissent to Turtle Bay” and the subtitle: “From Burundi to Syria, the lone Arab member of the U.N. Security Council is sparking concerns that it's working to weaken international human rights norms.” The signature affixed to this article is Colum Lynch, and was published in Foreign Policy.

The other article came under the title: “Egypt's Military Regime Grows More Brutal Every Day” and the subtitle: “Copts Likely To Find Persecution, Not Protection, Ahead.” The signature affixed to this one is Doug Bandow, and was published in the Online Forbes Magazine.

The pair of simpletons are simple-minded because they were asked to do something dumb and they did it not realizing how ridiculous they were. Here is what Lynch is supposed to be fuming about with regard to Egypt's activities on the UN Security Council: “Egypt plans to host a public debate on the need to fight incitement to terrorism and extremism.” And there is this: “Egypt is planning … along with New Zealand and Spain, a resolution urging governments and armed groups to respect the sanctity of medical workers and hospitals in conflict zones.” Gosh, can you believe this? How bad can these Egyptians get! Will someone stop them!

Bear in mind that the two anti-Egypt diatribes were identified by Doug Bandow in his Forbes article as having been spurred by “The Working Group on Egypt, whose members include leading neoconservatives such as Robert Kagan and Elliott Abrams.” It is not surprising, therefore, to see why these people had volcanoes erupt in their bellies, when exposed to what else Egypt has done. Look at the following passage in the Lynch article: “The Security Council has been polarized on many issues way before we joined it. We are in fact trying to bridge the gaps,” the Egyptian official said. “We have been proactive on almost every item. We simply refuse to be part of the furniture, as we are stakeholders on most of the issues on the council's agenda,” he added.

Scandalous. How dare they speak as a sovereign nation? As if this were not enough to set the entrails of the neocons on fire, look what else happened:

“Egypt's diplomatic counterparts at the U.N. say Cairo is shrewdly deploying elaborate and sophisticated arguments on a range of issues to push back on efforts to interfere in the domestic affairs of U.N. member states. Some U.N. officials have also credited Egypt with helping to press for a cessation of hostilities in Yemen … council diplomats say they have been deeply impressed with their Egyptian counterparts' diplomatic savvy … The Egyptians hit the ground running … They have mastered the U.N. Security Council's working procedures, an essential skill for influencing council debates, and Egypt's expert on Burundi, Somalia, Syria, and North Korea have all served in those countries before coming to New York … They are the best diplomats in the Arab world.”

Scandalous. How dare they be this good without obtaining prior permission from a higher authority in Washington or New York? These people must be punished.

Now to the Doug Bandow article. He says the following:

“the Middle East has turned hostile to Christians … also at risk are Egypt's Copts … the authorities did not actively persecute Copts, observed Michelle Dunne … Al-Sisi overthrew Morsi and became president. The previous Pope was connected to Mubarak. Pope Tawadros II publicly supported the coup and called al-Sisi a 'hero' … The church support for the military found itself targeted by angry Islamists … al-Sisi celebrated Christmas at a Coptic service”. What else can a president do to be close to his people? Nothing. In fact, the Christians of Egypt are asking for nothing more.

But that's exactly what’s bad about Egypt, says Bandow. He explains that the Christians of Egypt, including the current Pope and the one before him, did not know what was good for them. And if you want to know why that is, here is Bandow's explanation: “Even if Copts believe they remain safer under al-Sisi, they may have sold their liberty birthrate [he means birthright] for what turns out to be a mess of security pottage. The Coptic Church appears to be on the side of the oppressors … Copts live in the same unfree society as everyone else.” To which Egypt's Christians tell the Bandows of this world: go shove it.

But why is he saying what he says? It is because he fantasizes that “Cairo is engaged in a systematic campaign to shut down organizations which report on government abuses. Scores of domestic and international NGOs are under investigation … which raises questions about the stability of al-Sisi's rule”.

That last statement – indeed the entire two articles – is proven false by what Bandow says next: “In April public protests erupted over the gifting of two islands to Saudi Arabia.” Well, if repression in Egypt is what he says it is, those protests would not have taken place, or they would have been met with such force, people would have died. But nothing like that ever happened.

The truth is that the two islands belong to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Fearing an Israeli attempt to steal them, the militarily weak Kingdom at the time asked president Nasser of Egypt to protect them. He did, and now that the Kingdom has the military might to protect them, it got them back. When this was explained to the protesters, they went home quietly.

Now look what else Bandow says: “Egyptians unwilling to turn out on behalf of democracy demonstrated against this public prostration before Riyadh.” Two things are wrong with this statement. The first is that the protesters were uniformed. When they were told the history of the islands, they went home quietly.

The second thing is that the Egyptians will always be willing to turn out on behalf of democracy. They did twice before and they will do it again. For Bandow to say they were unwilling to do so this time is to show how confused the Americans have become about the meaning of democracy and the set of values it represents.

The problem is that for half a century it was drummed into the heads of the American people that democracy is expressed in the form of Jewish haggling, complete with “tough” Yiddish insults. That's what the people of America have come to believe. It's what the congress of the brain dead has come to reflect. And this is why America is paralyzed today.

Mooring the American Ship of State to Israel?

There is an old saying which goes something like this: “When God decides to destroy someone, he first renders them mad.” If you look at the situation in America today, you'll find that it applies on the dot to the self appointed leaders of the Jews who are losing the allegiance of their rank and file in droves, and are going bananas.

One of those going really mad is Lee Smith who wrote “A World Unmoored,” an article published on April 18, 2016 in the Weekly Standard. Smith begins his presentation by saying that Secretary of State John “Kerry hearts Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian minister … Kerry has a man crush on his Iranian counterpart.” And why is that? Because “Kerry reportedly speaks to Zarif on the phone regularly.” That is, Kerry is doing jaw-jaw instead of war-war, says Smith – and this must be love (or is it luv?) not politics or diplomacy.

If you are old enough to remember the time during the 1960s when all the talk was about sexual politics, you'll be tempted to put today's events in that context. So you ask why John Kerry is talking to Javad Zarif as often as he does, and Lee Smith provides the answer: “That's a good thing, says Kerry, because it means there's now a channel open to discuss issues between the two countries”.

Okay, you say, and you contrast that reality with the never ending talk in America and Israel about the exceptionally close relationship that is said to exist between America and Israel. To wit, you remember the time when the Jewish leaders in America and the Israeli operatives everywhere else lured President Obama into visiting Israel with the promise that the move will beget a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians.

Obama took the bait, visited Israel in good faith, and had what was described as a love-in with Netanyahu and his party. But no peace treaty was begotten, an outcome that was predicted by those who know the Jews inside out. So the question we pose to Lee Smith is the following: What do you call that, Lee? Was it luv or was it the seductive promise of a dick-teaser?

Perhaps Smith had realized this much by the time he got thus far writing the article. We make this assumption because he shifted the imagery from sexual politics to this: “Why Kerry boasts of this dubious achievement is partly a function of his vanity.” He now says it is vanity not love, and goes on to make the scenario a little more complicated. It's not only one man, he says, it's two of them: “The pictures of Kerry laughing with Zarif as well as his opposite number in Moscow, Sergey Lavrov, are evidence of something gone wrong in Washington”.

But why all this vitriol, you want to know? Two reasons, says Lee Smith. First, “the Iranians threaten America's chief Middle East ally, Israel, while the Russians are trying to drag another U.S. partner, Turkey, into conflict.” Second, he explains that: “Kerry is off the reservation, but it's the president who is giving Iran concession after concession.” And there is a dark reason for that, he explains. It is that Obama is doing worse than appeasement, “it's an Obama reeducation program”.

It is that bad, huh? Bad? We are told it is bad? What's bad? What the hell does it all mean, anyway? Good set of questions, says Lee Smith. And he answers them. He says that Obama is “correcting American foreign policy by changing a mindset 'characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy' … He believes he freed himself from the 'Washington playbook' [that's] out of the foreign policy establishment prescrib[ing] military responses,” and only that.

Wow, no more military responses, says Obama. It is back to the Sixties. It is peace and love (luv) again where flower power will defeat the mighty gun. Will Lee Smith be asked to tiptoe on the tulips?

He must fear this will happen because Obama believes that “decades of American thinking were wrong.” No, says Smith, that's false and he explains why: “The purpose of America's post-WWII foreign policy was to ensure a degree of stability abroad.” But how was this to be achieved? By dividing the world into two camps, says Smith: “These are our allies, and these are our adversaries”. And he warns: “dismantling the global order backed by American power, Obama has left the world unmoored”.

But how do we know who is our ally and who is our adversary? Simple, says Lee Smith. If someone extends his arm in friendship, he's our adversary. If he teases our dick, he's our ally. Israel is doing that and the American ship of state should be moored to it.

Round two of the Hate Machine now engaged

Shortly after the first Gulf War, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the United States of America (USA) entered a period that might be called belated honeymoon.

It happened because the half century of relations between the two countries – that had never gone beyond business dealings – suddenly turned into an intimate courtship. It's that Saudi Arabia had invited America to come and kick the redoubtable Saddam Hussein out of neighboring Kuwait. Doing this, scoring a brilliant victory and receiving payment for a job well done, the Americans were satisfied, and so were their Saudi hosts. The two were slated to live happily ever after … At least that's how things looked on the surface.

But the reality is that a double game of love triangle simmered beneath the surface. On the one hand, the Jews in America were jealous of that relationship because their scheme had always been to monopolize the American superpower and exploit its potentials. On the other hand, a group of Saudis, led by Usama Bin Laden, were jealous to see the hallow grounds of their kingdom desecrated by foreign troops that overstayed their welcome.

Bin Laden responded to the situation in a spectacular way, and history has recorded most of the minutia relating to that response. What is missing from history is the way that the Jews played their game and continue to play it. They were already influential in America at the time, but not as much as they are today. And so they chose the easy way to drive the wedge between the two “devotees.” They did it using the CBS television show 60 minutes to start a focused attack on the KSA.

To this end, they found an American woman that had served with the military in Saudi Arabia. They got her to whine that she felt violated being there. You would think she was raped by the entire Saudi military but no, it's not what happened. In fact, nobody even touched her. Well then, what happened? Are you ready for the answer, my friend? Here it comes: Her problem is that she was told to cover her head with a scarf when in public. Oh help us patron saint of repressed women! What infamy! What horror! What violation of a woman's human right!

For a time after that, the gates of heaven were left wide open to let the tears of sorrow rain down on a nation in mourning. The gates of hell were also left wide open to let the fire and brimstone of every orator and every wordsmith lob their biting ordnance at the Saudi way of life. The effect was that a rocky relationship developed between the two countries for a time, but things got back to normal eventually and to business as usual.

That was round one of the Jewish attempt to drive a wedge between the Saudis and the Americans. Bear in mind, however, that in a great drama, the storyline may be told through the main plot but the sizzle always comes out the subplots. And the subplot in this drama happened to be that the demise of Saddam Hussein had spurred the rise of Iran. What used to be Israel's friend now became its fiercest enemy. Iran was growing so fast, Israel resorted to reassuring its supporters in America that, in the confrontation with Iran, Saudi Arabia was on its side. For this falsehood to stick, Israel instructed its braying megaphones in America to hold back on the fire and brimstone they were lobbing in Saudi Arabia's direction.

Two things happened subsequent to that episode. First, Israel and the Jews lost the battle of the Iran nuclear deal. Second, the two pillars of the Arab world, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, started a rapprochement that promises to turn the dormant Arab Spring into a renewed Garden of Eden – the way the region was before the occupation of Palestine. And so, the Jews of America went back to the 60 Minutes show, and to the theme of Bin Laden.

It is that Bin Laden had expressed his anger at America by staging the 9/11 event. What the Jews have done 15 years later was to get 60 Minutes to demand the publication of classified pages in that file. Their intent is to start round two in the attempt to drive a wedge between KSA and USA, something they hope will drag Egypt into the dispute as well. It is worth noting that using America to hurt the Arabs, especially Egypt, has always been the most enduring of the Jewish dreams.

You already see American megaphones returning to the business of braying the same old Judeo-Israeli refrain. In fact, a recent article came under the title: “How Saudi Arabia dangerously undermines the United States,” written by Ralph Peters and published on April 16, 2016 in the New York Post.

Read it, and you'll understand why nothing ever ends well for the Jews. They have been damned for an eternity.

Fanatic Friends of Israel insulting Americans

You cannot find two so-called friends of Israel who would be more fanatic in their support for that artificial concoction than Mortimer Zuckerman and Alan Dershowitz.

In fact, Zuckerman brags that when it comes to supporting Israel, he is like the 90 year old man who keeps siring children. As to Dershowitz, he is a diehard volunteer lobbyist for Israel who spent a lifetime etching in the minds of America's retarded lawmakers that Israel has the divine right to commit against the Palestinians any crime that anyone has ever committed against a human being anywhere in the world, anytime in history.

Each of those two wrote a piece and had it published in Mortimer Zuckerman's New York Daily News on April 17, 2016. Under the guise of writing a regular editorial, Zuckerman authored: “Bernie just doesn't get it on Israel.” As to Alan Dershowitz, he wrote: “Bernie Sanders' illiberal supporters,” a regular Dershowitz piece of propaganda that also came under the subtitle: “Do they expect safe spaces everywhere?”

Here is how Zuckerman introduces the readers to the reasons why the pair of fanatics were motivated to raise their panicky voices at this time: “Brooklyn born-and-bred Bernie Sanders fancies himself a truth-teller by decrying Israel's response to Hamas and promising to sympathize with Palestinians should he win the White House … His remarks reveal him to be dangerously naïve about the realities of the region”.

He then starts the argument in defense of Israel by shooting himself in the mouth and shooting Israel in the head. Look at this juvenile passage: “While repeating that Israel has the right to defend her people, Sanders undermined that assertion by insisting that the Jewish state's response to Hamas was 'disproportionate'”.

What he says is that because Israel has the right to defend itself, it can employ any measure it wants when attacking someone – however extreme the measure may be. And her actions must never be considered disproportionate, says Zuckerman. Well, this is just another way to formulate the Dershowitz doctrine which says Israel has the right to commit any crime that anyone has committed anywhere in the world, anytime in history. The two fanatics are of one and the same mind on this matter.

But wait a minute. This is a universal right. In fact, it is well recognized that everyone – not just Israel – has the right to defend themselves. Consequently, the Dershowitz doctrine says that everyone has the right to commit any crime committed anywhere, anytime in history. This being the prevailing Jewish ideology, you know why my Jewish friend used to throw his hands up in the air and cry out that the self-appointed fanatic leaders of the Zuckerman and Dershowitz variety, are the people who – by their egotistical mutterings and selfish activities – stuff the proverbial train with innocent Jews and send them on a one way trip to the gas chamber.

And guess what, my friend. Bernie Sanders is the only Jew currently trying to put an end to this 4,000 year old human tragedy. The task is so superhuman you can only talk about it in fictional terms. That is, given Bernie’s stellar performance – as if powered by the warp engine of the Sanders truth-telling starship – Zuckerman's attempt to discredit him looks as comical and tragic as the performance of a Manhattan thief obstructing Captain Kirk (of Start Trek fame) and trying to rob him.

Look how Zuckerman has tried to pull his stunt: “the candidate [Sanders] infamously – and wrongly – told this editorial board that 10,000 Gazans were killed when that was the statistic for the injured.” That's it? That's all there is to Sanders' infamy and wrong-headed deed? Is this the performance about which Zuckerman moans “doesn't make Sanders good for Israel or America”?

But what about the editors who interviewed Bernie and asked a question to which they didn't know the answer? At least he admitted before answering that he couldn't remember the exact number. When he asked the editors to refresh his memory, they said they didn't know the answer either. Yeah, that's the truth, my friend. It is how the interview unfolded. Check the transcript and see for yourself.

So this message is for you, Captain Kirk of the starship. Have pity for the Zuckerman. Do not vaporize him as you might be tempted to do, but tell Scottie to beam him to a barren planet where he'll not sire anymore children.

As to Alan Dershowitz, here is what he proclaims at the start of his presentation: “the time has come to focus some of those who are most actively backing his [Sanders] candidacy.” He then goes on to insult Black Lives Matter, CodePink, MoveOn, the Occupy Wall Street veterans and the BDS movement, calling them all repressives.

He explains that they have “a warped concept of free speech that reflects the maxim 'free speech for me, but not for thee.'” But the fact is that no one other than Alan Dershowitz has admitted, let alone bragged, about curtailing someone's free speech.

It is that Dershowitz beat his breast like a proud ape of the jungle when he successfully denied a former President of the United States the right to free speech. And being a Jew, he did what comes naturally to him; he accused someone else of what he sees in himself.

This alone merits asking James T. Kirk of the starship to do what he sees fit with this defective specimen.

Incorrect Diagnosis and wrong Prescription

Let's be clear about one thing; the American President, Dwight Eisenhower who knew a thing or two about war and weapons of war – having been the American general who defeated the Nazis and liberated Europe – did the right thing when he warned about the growing power of the military-industrial complex.

He may or may not have been a military historian, and he may not have been an economic whiz kid, but he did not need to be a historian or an economist to know something about the relationship that exists between an absurd military posture and the ruin of nations. All he had to do was read up just a little about ancient Greece, Rome, the Ottoman Empire and others, to realize that a nation in relative economic decline (compared to others) will sign its own economic death warrant and military decline if it tries to expand militarily. Too bad, Eisenhower did not live long enough to see his view vindicated by the collapse of the old Soviet Union. He would have said to the Russians, I would have told you so if I thought you'd listen to me.

The correlated reality is that a rising economic power feels compelled to embark on a program to arm itself. It will do so in the knowledge that those who are still more powerful will try to slow down, if not crush, the economic progress it is making. And so, it will take the view that it is prudent to arm itself as if buying an insurance policy to protect its gains. In fact, a rising economic power can do so because to prepare for self-defense – as opposed to taking offensive action – will only cost it a fraction of the economic growth it is achieving.

That was the history of rising economic powers such as Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Japan till they made the fatal mistake of changing their military posture from defense to offense and the conquest of other lands. They captured the colonies whose natural resources they coveted, and then got so greedy as to turn against each other. And while this was happening, America became the rising economic power that began to see the necessity to arm itself and protect its gains. It did so and did it well – not only for itself but also for the foolish European powers that ruined themselves eventually.

Why is it important to remember this history? It is important because the cycle of life has come full circle, and America is now in economic decline compared to other rising powers, especially China. This is the rising economic juggernaut that's arming itself with mostly defensive weapons. It has also deployed a limited number of systems to act as offensive deterrence. This is to signal to the world that an aggressor contemplating a surprise first strike on China will not escape retaliation.

In response to that situation, there are those in America who argue that the country should arm itself, and there are those who argue it should adapt to the new reality, concentrating instead on revitalizing its economic base, thus be in a position to face a future that no one can predict how will unfold. Benny Avni is one of those who argue for arming America. He wrote: “Will any of the 2016 candidates be ready for the China challenge?” an article that was published on April 15, 2016 in the New York Post.

Having called China a challenge – as seen in the title of the article – and having nitpicked on every activity China undertook no matter how benign it may have been, Avni diagnosed China's posture, describing it as an evil-minded aggression. And he ended the article as follows: “Bottom line: The best chance of reining in China is through credible military deterrence … Will our next president put [that option on the table]? Based on the candidates' words and deeds, there's little sign of that so far”. This is a most extreme hawkish posture.

How did our author come to formulate those ideas, anyway? Actually, it is hard to answer this question because the writer started the article by stating his position without prior warning. Here is how he did that: “Our top Asian allies may soon find themselves in an epic battle with China.” He then falsely claimed that China took properties that belonged to other nations when, in fact, no flag was flying over any of the reefs or atolls he says belonged to those nations. But to reinforce the absurd claim he made, he quoted Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter who said that China's actions are causing anxiety and raising tensions in the area.

Whereas the Secretary did not say to whom those reefs and atolls belong, Avni went on to explain that America has a skin in the game because: “$5 trillion in annual trade and a third of the world's maritime traffic sail those waters [South China Sea,] and China may soon become the arbiter of it all.” As can be seen, Avni's suggestion is that the South China Sea should be interceded by America which lives half a world away, and not by China that lives in the neighborhood. Go figure.

Benny Avni mentions that Ashton Carter announced new military deployment in the Philippines. But he moans that “a show of force no longer instills fear.” As if to illustrate this point, he asserts that Obama will always shy away from military confrontation. He then asks: What will our four top presidential wannabes do about China”?

He guesses what each candidate will or will not do if elected president, and gives his bottom line. He prescribes that America should arm itself.

Dwight Eisenhower must be spinning in his grave.