What Mitt Romney Fails To Understand

The two candidates to the American presidency, the incumbent Barack Obama and the challenger Mitt Romney, had the first of three face-to-face debates last night, October 3, 2012. What came out loudly and clearly from that encounter was that Romney does not understand how an economy works. This had been the suspicion about him since he started saying he knew how to rescue the American economy because he was in business in a previous life where he did well; the proof being that he accumulated a great deal of wealth.

Despite the suspicion of some people, others gave Romney the benefit of the doubt in the hope that he will unveil his economic plan during the debates that were to happen just before the election. Well, the first debate was about the economy, and all that Romney was able to give the audience were the same old arguments. With this, he revealed that he may know how to accumulate money once the wealth has been created by someone but he does not know how to create that wealth himself. And this means that he may have the knowledge to run a private equity fund successfully but he lacks the skill to run the economy of a nation, let alone the economy of a superpower.

What he was able to demonstrate during the debate was that he could memorize a little of the language of business and a few simple ideas about the subject. In fact, he did not have to be in business to accumulate this kind of knowledge because reading the pages of the business section in a newspaper for a year would have been sufficient to give him that much of a background. Many people do just that, and manage to lead the good life running a small business requiring little or no acumen.

Based on the presentation that Romney made, his economic philosophy came to the fore and proved to stand entirely on the principle that if you cut taxes, you will grow the economy enough so that you could reward everyone and keep everybody happy. No matter what question he was asked, and no matter the angle from which he articulated his points, the message that came out concerning his position was to the effect that cutting taxes was going to fix all things.

But the fact is that the remedy he described – while being a legitimate remedy – is not one that works everywhere. This is because each ailing economy requires a remedy that is specific to it. If there existed a single remedy that worked for every economy, it would be applied everywhere, and there would never be an ailing economy in the world. But the truth is that economies go through cycles that weaken them at times due to the possible combination of a number of circumstances. Thus, to fix an ailing economy, one must begin by understanding what afflicts it, then prescribe the correct remedy.

What can be said about the American economy today is that cutting taxes to leave more money in the hands of those who “create jobs” – which is what Romney advocates – is not the right kind of remedy because massive amounts of money are now in the hands of these people; whomever they may be. Simply put, the system is flush with money, and pumping into it more money will not do the trick. Something else needs to be done, and Romney has shown he has no clue what that is.

The reality is that there have been extensive and well thought-out discussions on the ailing American economy, and the possible remedy to it. You would think that Romney had caught wind of that, and had fashioned a stance of his own to run on. But this is not what he did, and it is obvious why. It is that the discussions were above his head because running a private equity fund did not equip him to understand those discussions. He remained deaf to them and clung to the superficial language that may sound substantive to a financial engineer but says little to those who maintain a wider view of the economy.

Another point that kept cropping in the Romney presentation was that competition was going to make the economy work better. This too is one of those simple concepts you need not be proficient in business to know about. But you need to have been in business to understand that an economy can suffer in such a way as to force merchants in a given line of business avoid competition between them. They form pools, associations or cartels that help them stay in business till conditions change. That is, they cease to compete against each other.

And this is what happened in the health care business in America, especially the insurance part of it. Had Mitt Romney understood this reality, he would have made a more enlightened presentation of his health plan, thus avoided attacking Obamacare as he did.

So far, Romney has shown he can get into the rink with a bunch of like minded financiers, fund managers and gamblers where he would land a punch or two on someone's nose – maybe even the referee – but he is no material that is ready to run an economy the size of America's.

The Need To Define Psycho Fossilized

There is a difference between being an educated person and being a learned person. To be educated, people go to school (often as children) where someone teaches them a few of the basics that will be useful to them in life. In some cases – even in these modern times – the children are taught at home by parents or by tutors. On the other hand, someone can become a learned person by acquiring knowledge on their own, something they do by observation, research, reasoning and whatever else goes into this process.

What must be said, however, is that to be educated and to acquire knowledge on one's own are not mutually exclusive activities. In fact, most of the time, the people who do extremely well in the use and the application of knowledge are those who first acquire an education up to a certain level – be it at school or at home – then go on to add to their knowledge by acquiring more of it on their own. In fact, even those who stay in a school setting up to their adult years, are required to do research before they can earn a master's degree or a PhD. That is, they are required to do a certain amount of independent learning.

But there is a difference of sort between being taught a subject and acquiring knowledge on one's own. It is that education alone has an effect on people which is different from what happens when people learn on their own. Teachers often detect this difference in the students where the majority does no more than listen to the lecture in class then go home and do the assignment. By contrast, there is always a handful of students who go beyond that, and strive to acquire knowledge on their own. Even if they do not add a whole lot to what they were given in class, the effort they make molds these students into a different type of person.

An attentive teacher would discover that the first type of students learn by rote. It takes them time to internalize a set of ideas and when they do, they latch on to them stubbornly as if they were dogmas. The trouble with this kind of situation is that if for a reason – such as having a bad teacher one year – students of this type learn something that is incomplete or confusing, they carry the weakness into the future and have a difficult time shaking it off. The teacher who is unfortunate enough to face a situation like this will have a hard time correcting a student of that type.

By contrast, the students who develop the habit of adding to their knowledge by wrestling with the ideas they are taught in class and by doing independent research on their own, are more hesitant to consider matters as being absolute. Thus, the teacher will find these students to be more receptive to being corrected when they are made aware that something they thought was right needs a little more elaboration and more development. In fact, if told where to look, this type of students welcome the challenge of having to find out on their own where they went wrong and how to modify their thinking to arrive at a different conclusion.

And that reality is not restricted to the school setting. It is so universal, you encounter it everywhere you look, especially in the settings where people earn a living peddling what passes for information they label as being indispensable and useful knowledge for the masses. The worst of these places is the sphere of punditry where individuals who can only learn by rote have false or incomplete concepts hammered into their heads earlier in their career. They come out looking like fossilized dinosaurs to express ideas they hold onto so stubbornly, they sound like dangerous psychos. These are the psycho-fossilized creatures of the modern media; and there are plenty of them around.

One such individual is Victor Davis Hanson who wrote an article published in National Review Online on October 2, 2012. It has the title: “The Neurotic Middle East” and the subtitle: “The world tacitly exempts the Middle East from rules of civilized behavior.” This being a provocative title, you get the sense at first that the highly educated person who authored this article may also be of the type that did some learning of his own, and that he may have something valuable to communicate to the world.

You do not necessarily accept the premise of his discussion as proclaimed by the title and the subtitle of the article, but you trust that if you engage him in a debate, you could perhaps influence him as much as you may be influenced by him. But when you start to go over his article, it gradually dawns on you that this man may not be flexible enough to be persuaded of anything. You begin to think that despite his education and his learning, he may be a psycho-fossilized creature disguised as something else.

And so you try to find out what could have happened to this person that made him develop the way he did. To this end, you read the article again, and you notice that the point he is making is to the effect that “Many of the things which are bothersome in the world today originate in the Middle East.” This does not surprise you given that for some time now, you have been following the antics of the Jewish propaganda machine whose goal – you have come to understand – is to blame everything on the Arabs and the Muslims. And so, you resign yourself to the reality that this is just another one of those who either belongs to the horrible machine or is a victim of it.

You keep reading the article to see how the author itemizes the “bothersome things” which he says originate in the Middle East. What grabs your attention is the style in which he does that. It is that he makes subtle editorial points as he goes along by pretending to say something different from what he actually says. For example, he does not simply say that passengers are inconvenienced at airports for fear of terrorism; he says they are inconvenienced not because the terrorism originates in the slums of Johannesburg, and not because it originates with the grandsons of displaced East Prussians. You see what is happening here, my friend?

I'll tell you what is happening. Using that style of writing, the author makes the point that the Palestinians are not the only ones to have been forced to live in slums because someone stole their land; so did the South Africans who suffered at the hands of the European Whites. Also, the Palestinians are not the only ones to have been displaced because someone stole their land; so did the East Prussians who suffered at the hands of the Poles. But wait a minute, you say to yourself, could this guy not see that the Africans and the Prussians each suffered only one thing whereas the Palestinians suffered both things?

Not only that but the Palestinians suffered both things at the same time at the hands of the same culprits who happened to be Jews. Is there not something to be said about this? Maybe Hanson has been talking to Alan Dershowitz who said that Israel has the right to do to the Palestinians anything and everything that anyone has ever done to someone at any time anywhere in this world. It all fits nicely, does it not? It is like the glove that fits the hand, something that should give Dershowitz nostalgia given that he participated in the O.J. Simpson trial where the glove fit, and the jury was forced to acquit. This is justice as it can be understood only by a Dershowitz, a Hanson and all those like them.

Hanson keeps using that same style of writing for a good part of the article not realizing that he has been painting an image of Israel, making it look like a garbage bin containing every conceivable sort of trash someone has wanted to dump into it. He stops for a second to take a breath then explains: “The world obsesses over Israel and the Palestinians because of the neurotic Middle East.” He then resumes the trek by recalling what other calamities the Jews have brought to the Middle East, all of which he blames on someone else, of course. This time he drags into the discussion Jerusalem and Nicosia, Palestinian and Jewish refugees, the West Bank settlements and the islands between China and Japan, the dispute between Argentina and Britain over the Falklands, the Kuril Islands, Gdansk/Danzig, the minorities in Israel and in Egypt. By now you realize that this guy is a confirmed psycho.

What tells you he is also steeped deeply in Jewish culture is what he does next. Having mutilated history, he now speculates about the future, and talks about it as would a prophet who sees it with the same clarity he sees the past and the present. He begins by asserting: “We don't expect another Cal Tech to sprout in Cairo in the way it might in either Bombay or Beijing.” And he drags into this part of the discussion Tripoli and Tel Aviv, Syria and South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Kia, Pakistan and Germany, Afghanistan and Yemen, Middle Eastern biofuels and Brazil, Libya, the American Southwest and Native Americans.

And if you were shocked by the fact that at least one American President went around the globe mouth-farting what the Jewish propaganda machine had stuffed in his oral orifice, wait till you read what Hanson has written to compare the economies of the Middle East with the rest of the world. If you are stunned by the fact that Spain is in the sewer at this time having been hailed as a great model for the Arabs to emulate by a President that did not know what he was mouth-farting about, you will be horrified to know that Hanson still cannot see that the center of economic gravity is shifting back not only to the Far East but also the Middle East where the fortunes of the two Easts have moved in tandem since the beginning of time.

He asks: “How do we make sense of this abject nonsense?” And he answers that the world turns cowardly when it comes to protecting the self interest of the few where recycling the oil profits play a role. After that he makes two observations back to back that are truly puzzling. First, he asserts that the West is self-loathing, which is a very Jewish thing to do. He then says that the Middle Easterners suffer from a collective inferiority, which is also a very Jewish thing to say. And so you ask yourself: How can someone hold these two notions in the same head at the same time, and still believe that one culture is superior to the other?

And you get the answer right away because he does something without realizing what he is doing. Look what he writes: “Exasperated Arab secular intellectuals sometimes confess that [this and that] combine in the Middle East to ensure poverty and violence.” No, no, no, you scream, it is not sometimes; it has always been like that because no one criticizes the self as much as the Arabs – especially the Egyptians. The difference between then and now is that pundits like Hanson never bothered to check if Jewish moral syphilis was being ejaculated into their skulls by those who pretend to translate Arab and Muslim writing. For half a century, Hanson and all the others never got the true story, they got moral syphilis instead.

When it became too difficult to continue hiding the truth, some people began to admit there is more criticism of the self among the Arabs than there will ever be among Jews in the primitive annals of the North American media. This is the place where people tell me: “After nearly half a century, we want to take you off the blacklist, Fred; we just don't know how to do it.” And I say to them: This is so very Jewish. They started you on something but never gave you an exist strategy or a way to reverse course. They screwed you and you worshiped them.

What there is now is a democracy that stinks so odiously, it could only have come out of Satan's asshole. And I tell these people: Don't you dare go shove it down someone's throat anywhere in the world; it would be a crime against humanity.

To end his presentation, Hanson uncovers a potpourri of everything you expect to see in an anti-Arab, anti-Muslim propaganda cesspool. Not only that, he also prescribes a remedy for what he convinced himself the people of the Middle East need. This is how the psychos of the world delude themselves.

How to retrieve people like that from their state of fossilized dogma should be the preoccupation of those who want to rescue America from a certain descent into irrelevance.

In the meantime, leave the Middle East alone; it is doing just fine all by itself.

Mitt Romney Has Got It All Wrong

The one thing that Mitt Romney does not seem to understand is that he cannot scare people by barking at them and yet, barking is what his Jewish advisers are telling him to do. If he has any wisdom at all, he would know that the worst thing a superpower (or a has-been superpower) can do is get into a fight it cannot win because this would be the best way to lose what little respect it may still have in the world.

The truth is that since WWII – aside from the incursions into the Dominican Republic and in Panama – America has been defeated on the battlefield everywhere it ventured without being asked to participate by the Europeans or by the Arabs. It was defeated in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq 2 and Afghanistan where it went on its own. It was victorious in Iraq 1, the Balkans and Libya where it was invited to participate.

Romney may think that barking is an electoral ploy he will not have to honor after the election. Fair enough or maybe not so fair, after all. But if the people to whom he panders by the fact that he barks at the Arabs and the Muslims – will not be bothered by a broken promise, the Arabs and the Muslims will not forget what he tried to do. And they will react in their own funny way. That is, they will send him a big dose of contempt; a message that will dare him to show off his big manhood rather than his big mouth.

Don't forget, dear reader, that since Vietnam, the image that the world has had of the American soldier is that of a proud man when he is bombing you from the air, but that of a child crying for his mommy when he is captured. No, nobody is going to tremble in their boots or their sandals or their bare feet because Romney is barking at them. But if he starts a fight, they will give him one that is so asymmetric, he will never forget it, especially that every soldier they capture will risk having his manhood chopped off and sent to his commanding officer. This will be done in retaliation for Abu Ghraib and for the pissing on the bodies of dead Afghan soldiers. You see, these people too believe in an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a dick for a dick.

If you want to see how dumb Romney's Jewish advisers are, read the article that came under his name in the October 1, 2012 edition of the Wall Street Journal. It has the title: “A New Course for the Middle East” and the subtitle: “Restore the three sinews of American influence: our economic strength, our military strength and the strength of our values.” Of course, you meet the sentence making up that subtitle later in the article, upon which you immediately understand that the article was written by advisers who first consider themselves Jews working for the benefit of Israel, and then consider themselves Americans who are given the opportunity to exploit America for the benefit of Israel.

This reality becomes apparent because the article is not about America or about America in the world; rather it is about America in the Middle East. As the title suggests, what you see everywhere from the first paragraph to the last is a discussion that concerns the diminishing influence of America in the Middle East, and the effect this has on the security of Israel. Thus, when the Jewish speechwriters say that America must restore the sinews of its influence, which they identify as being the economy, the military and the values, they indicate that they want the restoration to work for Israel first and foremost. Only if there is a leftover, will that go to the American people.

You may think they would want to make a big effort to hide the truth about their allegiance but they don't. They only make a small effort that leaves them as transparent as an open book. They do so by first stating the following: “Disturbing developments are sweeping across the greater Middle East.” They enumerate those developments then say this about them: “They are major issues that put our security at risk.” Here, the speechwriters count on you to think that when they say “our security” you will take it to mean America's security when, in fact, their only concern is the welfare and the security of Israel.

And you notice this fact right away because you see them lament that: “In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has come to power, and the country's peace treaty with Israel hangs in the balance,” when in the subtitle they talked about strengthening American values. Well, my friends, it was the Muslim Brotherhood that strengthened American values in the Middle East by getting elected through legitimate means. But now you see the Jewish writers lament that the old regime in Egypt – which they seem to have cherished without ever admitting it – is no more. So you scream: How in Jewish hell do they propose to strengthen America's democratic values in the Middle East? Bring back the old regime in Egypt? Resuscitate Gaddafi and restore him to power? What in Yiddish hell are these people moaning about?

But if they do not see a free election in Egypt as being a step in the direction of American values, what do they see as being a step in the direction of American values? What a question! What a question this is, my friend! You really want to know what the answer is? Okay, I'll tell you what it is but brace yourself because these people took a convoluted route before putting the answer down. Look at this passage: “by stepping away from our allies, President Obama has heightened the prospect of conflict and instability.” You know what this is about?

I'll tell you what it's about. It's an endorsement of the threat that Netanyahu has been making for a time, a threat to the effect that he will launch an attack on Iran knowing full well that Iran has the wherewithal to retaliate and cream him in the process. When the creaming will start happening, America will be forced to do what it has done before which is to come to the rescue of Israel.

Thus, to attempt suicide so as to pull America into a war it cannot afford is what the Romney speechwriters call a step in the direction of American values. Get it now? These characters are saying you must forget about free elections in Egypt because this is too girlish to be considered American values. Look instead at the attempt to commit suicide which is so manly, it is American values through and through.

And this is why Mitt Romney wants to be President of the United States of America, and this is why he wants the American people to vote for him.

Can you believe this?

Big Project Up For Adoption

The time has come for the election campaigns which are out in force, each trying to get its candidate elected, to talk to the people as honestly as can be done. That is, the people must be told that America will not solve its most pressing problems such as the economy, for example – or any of the other well entrenched problems – by continuing to play politics the way that the game has been played up to now. Something needs to change, something that would be as fundamental as the Constitution of the United States.

Yes, the Constitution is considered to be a hallowed document but it also sets the rules for how the political game is played. And yes, the Constitution is held in high esteem by the American people, which is perfectly understandable, but someone must now promise that if elected President or reelected to the post, he will start a big project to save the nation. This will be the start of an effort to have the Constitution modernized because to preserve a nation that has become sclerotic is more important than to preserve the aura of a Constitution which no longer serves the purpose it was framed to serve.

There is no denying that the American Constitution has served the country well for two centuries, and no denying that the politics which resulted from that document will for ever represent the best in political governance – as it has endlessly been debated and aptly demonstrated by the ideologues of the time, people who unfortunately now stand as advocates of a bygone era. Times have changed, and a new philosophy of governance must replace the old to allow the country to keep up with the times, and allow it to deal with new challenges that the original framers of the Constitution could not have foreseen at the time that they lived and the circumstances in which they found themselves long ago.

In brief, the time has come for America to say goodbye to the ideas of the individuals in its midst who refuse to let go of that which is broken, that which proves to be unworkable every day of the week that the government is supposed to be working and producing efficiently but remains gridlocked as if it were frozen in time. It is now imperative for America to walk through the gates of modernity, and prove that the exceptionalism it attributes to itself does not consist solely of attracting people from abroad who may come with new ideas, but that the American system of government is open to ideas which are generated locally in response to needs that are produced by local conditions.

What makes the American Constitution obsolete, and what renders it even more so as time passes is that it was formulated to serve a newly liberated republic whose people still dreaded the kind of rule they endured under the old colonial masters. Suffering from a bunker mentality and fearing the return of tyranny, the framers of the Constitution cobbled together a set of ideas that balanced the powers of the various branches of government so well; they weakened those branches enough to forbid the rise of a tyrant at the helm of the ship of state.

The result was that the approach did solve the problem it was meant to solve, and no tyrant rose to govern America. But unfortunately for future generations, the approach also paralyzed the government, a development that was not considered a threat to the nation at the time that the framers were alive because the world was then a different place from what it is today.

In fact, from the agrarian society it was then, America has evolved to become an industrial state, getting there in the same way that things have evolved in many other parts of the world. From being sparsely populated, America has become a much denser society with most of the population now living in big cities. Flanked by two oceans, the nation that lived at a safe distance from the rest world, is safe no more from the threats that may come from abroad in an age of supersonic travel, of instant communication and of means to access large gatherings of people.

This is a threat that would not have fazed a sleeping giant in the past but could now hurt a giant that may be wide awake but is not attentive enough to protect itself. Indeed, this is what happened on 9/11 in the year 2001, which is the reason why similar threats are now being dealt with diligently, and why they are guarded against with utmost attentiveness. But a giant can still be foolish enough to have its hands tied behind its back with a constitution that is obsolete and getting more so with each passing day. Sadly, this is where America stands at this juncture, where the ideologues of an earlier era wish to keep it.

In fact, the challenges which are facing America today, and will continue to face it in the future will not be of the sort that manifest themselves in the form of invading armies streaming from abroad to land on the beaches of the nation. And they will not be challenges that manifest themselves in the form of elected leaders harboring the secret ambition of someday setting up a dictatorial administration through which they plan to rule with the iron fist of a tyrant. No, these days are gone forever never to return, thus the Constitution that was meant to guard against them is obsolete and needs to be updated to be relevant in the face of the new challenges which are cropping up all over the places.

Let it be understood that the challenges will now come in the form of a foreign competition that is economic in nature more than anything else. To deal with them effectively will require a federal government that is not paralyzed but one that is able to formulate a quick response and keep up with the immediate demands of every fast moving challenge. More than that, the government that America needs at this time is one that is flexible and can modulate its responses nimbly. It will have the ability to shift its responses at a moment's notice to stay abreast of the changing circumstances if not be ahead of them.

To that end, the courageous candidate in the current presidential campaign should promise the electorate that if elected or reelected, he will propose and fight for a set of amendments to the Constitution that will maintain the system of checks and balances now in existence. But the amendments will also allow for the timely execution of the nation's affairs if and when the political process becomes so paralyzed as to bring the business of the nation to a standstill and keep it there, which – sad to say – is what takes place too often these days.

For example, if it happens that the Congress cannot pass an important piece of legislation for say, six months, the idea is to have an amendment in the Constitution that will give the power to act on this one matter to a troika made of the President and the leaders of the two Houses of Congress. Where two members of the troika agree on a course of action, it shall be so ordained, and will be executed as if Congress had made the decision.

However, to preserve and safeguard the principles of checks and balances, such decision will only unfreeze the current situation and help it move forward but will not become a law onto itself. It will not be allowed to apply somewhere else or serve as precedent to guide future actions or precipitate the enactment of new laws or cause the adoption of new regulations that can become permanent.

Of course, an amendment such as this will need to be debated in public where other ideas will most certainly be introduced. For example, there may be a call to give a role to the Chief Justice who would intervene or refuse to do so when the three members of the troika are of the same political Party, and there is widespread misgiving in the Congress or among the public that the decision of the troika could damage the nation. As to what role the Chief Justice will play is a matter that is open for debate.

Now that the threat posed by the near meltdown of the financial system of 2008-2009 seems to have passed with no more dangerous side effects looming on the horizon, the dysfunction of the system of governance stands as the next major trouble to threaten America and a number of other nations.

Given that this is a subject that will have to be dealt with sooner or later, it will be a good idea for the candidates to the American presidency to tackle it now and thus launch the public debate about it.

The Refined Gentleman And The Cruel Beast

If members of a civilization in a far away solar system out there in a distant corner of the Milky Way have been capturing our communication signals for a time, and have been wondering what we make of the concept of good and evil, they will cease to wonder because the General Assembly of our United Nation would have given them an example of the way that we understand that concept, and how we live it on planet Earth. They may have captured two of the speeches that were given at the world forum; one presented by the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and one presented by the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu.

They will see that Ahmadinejad began the speech by describing his country of Iran as being a founder of human civilization in that it contributed to “knowledge, culture, wisdom, morality, philosophy and mysticism.” He called his country “the land of compassion, enlightenment, scientists, scholars, masters of literature and writers.” And he mentioned some of its great contributors such as “Avicenna, Ferdowsi, Hafiz, Maulana, Attar, Khayyam and Shariar.” He went on to call Iran “a great, proud and conscious nation dedicated to the cause of freedom and compassion … one that values the blessings of peace and stability.”

He called his people “noble,” called the General Assembly of the United Nation “august” and referred to the “sisters and brothers” who came from around the world to assemble here in this week. He said he wanted to show them that his nation – as brilliant as it was in the past and as noble as it is today – has a “global vision and that it welcomes every effort intended to provide and promote peace, stability and tranquility.” And he made it clear that these goals can only be achieved “through harmony, cooperation and joint management of the world.”

This being his eighth annual appearance at that podium, he tackled the same issues he did before but tackled them from a different perspective this time. He began by saying that regardless of their differences, people of all colors, languages and traditions have wanted “a more beautiful life blessed with lasting peace, security and happiness.” Despite the effort of many to achieve these goals, the history of mankind has been “marked with unfulfilled dreams and failures.”

Then, instead of listing the reasons that led to human misery rather than the fulfillment of those aspirations – which would have been a depressing thing for the readers to go through – Ahmadinejad did something so creative, you can say he pulled a vision of hope from the jaws of despair. What he did is begin by saying: “Imagine for a moment,” and then listed the darkest moments in history by inviting the readers to imagine how history might have unfolded had it not been for those dark moments.

In this regard, he mentioned big moments such as the Dark Ages of the medieval period, the wars of the Crusaders, the periods of slavery and colonialism, the two great wars ... those in Korea, Vietnam, Africa, Latin America and the Balkans, as well as the occupation of Palestine. All of which, he went on to say, contributed to the displacement of millions of people and to genocide around the globe. There was also the invasion of Iran by Saddam, the events of September 11, and the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And he invited the listeners of his speech to imagine a world without “selfishness, distrust, malice or dictators violating the rights of others.” A world that was free of terrorism where the pen was used to promote the well-being and amity among nations. It would be a world in which the sectarian and racial conflicts of one were not used to advance the political agendas of another. A world in which the right to free speech allowed the honest criticism of Zionism to shed light on the reality of that regime, instead of the current deceitful gestures that allow offending the beliefs of some by pretending to back the free expression of others.

From there, he went on to discuss the unfair distribution of power on the global stage such as the Security Council that is dominated by a small number of governments. As well, there are the international economic institutions which are not allowed to perform fairly or justly. And he ended this part of the presentation by offering the following thought: “Imagine how beautiful and pleasant our lives would have been [without those irritants] and what a lovely way the history of mankind would have unfolded.”

Well, this was the imagination but there is a reality that is different from it. To discuss that reality, he divided it into four situations: Economic, Cultural, Political and Security, and then there is the Environmental. However, his discussion in these areas being no different from what passes for middle of the spectrum assessment of the world order, I shall not take it up here.

Having drawn up that list, Ahmadinejad now asks the question: “Who is responsible for all that suffering and for these failures?” He answers the question by saying there are people who blame the victims then justify the situation by describing it as being based on the theory of “Survival of the fittest” which they continue to propagate. But he goes on to say that this is not what the majority of the people want, be they Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist. Instead “the current abysmal situation … is due to the bad management of the world by the centers of power that sold themselves to the devil.”

He then describes these centers of power in a way which conveys the notion that the people who donate millions of dollars to election campaigns do so not because they have the interest of the people in their hearts but because they invest in the quest to monopolize power, thus expand their domination of the world. He asks what would be the way to rectify the current situation; and he answers that the world needs a new order as well as a fresh way of thinking.

What he offers in this regard are platitudes that speak of the belief in God, the adherence to truth and justice, the quest for human dignity, happiness, perfection, peace, security and the welfare of all. Not to forget kindness, justice and equality before the law ... You name it; it's all there. But then he asks if this can be achieved. And he answers, yes it can be achieved by acquiescing to the joint management of the planet, and the creation of global structures that will make possible the implementation of the right sort of policies.

If by now, the beings out there in the Milky Way would have asked themselves who would be in charge of overseeing these changes, Ahmadinejad had an answer for them. He said in his speech that Marxism being no longer around, that Capitalism being in a self-made quagmire, and the United Nation lacking the efficiency to bring about the sought after changes, the responsibility for doing the heavy lifting should fall on the shoulders of the Non Aligned Movement (known by the acronym NAM) and whose 120 member nations congregated in Teheran not long ago.

To end his presentation, Ahmadinejad played on the vision of the three divine religions where the Jews still await the coming of the Messiah, where the Christians await the second coming of Jesus, and where the Muslims await the coming of the Mahdi – an event that will take place in the company of Jesus. When this happens, said Ahmadinejad, humanity will have been reborn and will, from then on, enjoy the good life as life was meant to be.

Now the beings who are out there in the Milky Way turn their attention to the Netanyahu speech where they encounter this passage: “And of course, Iran's rulers repeatedly deny the Holocaust and call for Israel's destruction almost on a daily basis, as they did again this week from the United Nations.”

And the beings look at each other and yell: WHAT? Where in earthly hell did the Iranians mention the Holocaust or Israel? Is this thing they call Netanyahu a human being or is it the rug pissing dog it is reputed to be?

They label Ahmadinejad the refined gentleman who represents the good on Earth, and they label Netanyahu the cruel beast that represents evil on Earth and possibly the whole Universe.

And they turn off their equipment to go to bed.

Lies, Spins And The Lack Of Forgiveness

To seek the truth and to forgive are powerful tenets of Christianity and of Islam, not of Judaism. I learned of this truth not because someone taught me a lesson on the subject but because I discovered it myself. I learned of that truth ever so slowly as it dawned on me over a period of many years that horrible things were happening all over the places, and I struggled trying to understand why the things were the way they were. More precisely, I struggled with the question: Why human beings are made to suffer needlessly even in the places where suffering must never be allowed to happen?

I alluded to such notions in my previous writings but had no example till now that would illustrate what I had in mind. What changed are three passages in the speech delivered to the UN General Assembly on September 25, 2012 by the American President, Barack Obama. The first passage is this: “It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds ... without fear.” The second passage is this: “...when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views … the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond.” And the third passage is this: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when ... the Holocaust is denied.”

There is in those passages a contradiction so massive; I could write a book about it. But this is not what I plan to do because that contradiction pales when compared to what else is revealed by those passages. What there is, my friend, is an example of how the self-appointed leaders of the religion they call Rabbinical Judaism, have managed to institutionalize the lies they manufacture, and to inflict capital punishment on the people who refuse to consider those lies the new gospel truth.

What follows is a brief history of what happened over the past few decades. As it stands, it happens to be an eloquent account addressing the three passages in the President's UN speech. It responds specifically to his query: “The question, then, is how to respond.” It also tells why the President's presentation may prove to be inadequate, and why a followup is necessary if the intent is to make the world a better place for mankind.

How did the Jewish leaders do it? First, they used the media to pound into the heads of the populations that hosted them – mostly in Europe and North America – that they are Semites and that to deny the Holocaust, is to exhibit an antisemitism whose goal is to annihilate all Jews. They spun every item that crossed their desk in such a way as to argue that harboring a sentiment that tends to deny the Holocaust was to have a criminal intent whether or not you have the wherewithal to annihilate any Jew.

This done, they worked to pass a law forbidding the denial of the Holocaust, a move that had the effect of intimidating the whole of society. And this intimidation is what acted as a deterrent whether or not a law was eventually passed to criminalize the denial of the Holocaust. The main point to retain from this, is that the relentless effort conducted by the Jewish leaders, and the publicity that resulted have acted as a deterrent for the rest of society not to venture into certain territories. And this should answer the President who asked: “The question, then, is how we respond.” Well, the Jewish leaders knew how to respond.

Now outlawed by the enactment of an actual law or by the social pressures that were generated by the process, the mention of the Holocaust – let alone its questioning or its outright denial – became a crime that most people were afraid to commit intentionally or inadvertently. An internal system of self-censorship was instilled in people, a setup that remains in effect to this day because it keeps reinforcing itself with the passage of time.

But matters did not stop here because, in fact, the setup became a powerful weapon in the hands of those who used it, who abused it and still do to achieve many of the other purposes they have in mind. It is that they call deniers of the Holocaust the people they dislike for any reason at all. This gives them a license to inflict maximum punishment on them – such as a lifetime sojourn on the blacklist, for example.

Watching these people go through those steps over the decades, you come to realize that the Rabbinical Judaism which powers them is a religion so different from Christianity, the two can only be at war with each other. And this, my friend, is what explains why the Jews have been rejected in Christendom over the centuries, and why they are shunned all over Europe even today by the local populations there. But this is not all that you learn about them because when you study them closely, something else hits you in the face.

What you learn is that these people only know how to start something, and they never think of an exit strategy or a plan B that would tell them where to stop or when to go in reverse if something goes wrong. Instead, they launch every project that turns them on, and they keep going unguided like a ballistic missile because they believe that no matter what they do, and no matter what happens in the end, God will always come to their rescue.

However, because experience has taught them that God can be a very patient Being with a horizon that extends to eternity, they decided it is always better to get someone else to do the dirty work for them. If things go well, they collect; if things go bad, they trash the sucker that helped them and go look for another sucker. Over time, they discovered that in a democracy which is beginning to rot, the quintessential pushover they can use, abuse and take for sucker is the politician who gets to be elected and the bureaucrat who gets to be appointed. And so they started to work on the people that run the various branches of government as well as their agencies.

Having also discovered that this was a slippery slope they can use to their advantage, they worked to codify the lies that they manufactured, thus institutionalized them and made them irreversible. For example, without explaining why it was necessary to pass a law that makes it a criminal offense to communicate with a terrorist organization, they generated no opposition when they pushed such a law through the legislature. Come to think of it, who would have objected to that? But once they had the law in their pocket, they started picking on the people and organizations they disliked; had them designated as terrorist, thus criminalized talking to them or dealing with them – even if your purpose is to find out who they are or what they want.

When it came to this project, the Jewish leaders had more luck with the Americans than the Europeans. Bit by bit, they succeeded in isolating America from the rest of the world as would a sex master who gets jealous when his male bimbo tries to hang around with other men. Being in complete control of America by now, they used the media, the so-called think tanks, the various branches of government and every institution they could lay their hands on to extend their influence to the rest of the world. They had a few successes executing this plan in the places where they wanted to demonstrate how tightly they controlled superpower America.

As to the places where they had a difficult time intimidating the people or getting them under their control, the Jewish leaders got the Americans to insult these people for no reason that looked like a rational thing to do. For example, the Jews instilled in the American officials the habit of disparaging the Arabs each time that they mentioned buying oil from them. The hell with this, said the Arabs, if you don't like our oil, don't buy it. But don't come here looking for a bargain buying from us then go home and insult us every time that a Jewish speechwriter stuffs your mouth with foul words. We had it up to here with this childish behavior.

Related to that notion was the wondering expressed by President Obama during his speech to the UN General Assembly: “The question, then, is how we respond.” The answer is that you consider Rabbinical Judaism to be not a religion but a group of evil people implementing an evil agenda whose purpose is to plunge the world into chaos. You do not hire these people for sensitive positions, and you do not let them write speeches for you. This done, you make a herculean effort to rescind all the laws and resolutions (binding and non-binding) which are Jewish-specific or Israel-specific that were passed by either House of the Congress.

And you never forget this fact: a dogma is a creed to which people adhere if they want to be a part of the religion that propounds that creed. Thus, a dogma is not open to query or discussion in whole or in part. It is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition which means you either stay in the religion or you be excommunicated from it. Thus, to turn the Holocaust into a dogma that people must believe in, or see themselves be excommunicated from society by law or by social pressure, is to turn Rabbinical Judaism into a super religion to which all other religions must be subjugated.

This puts the Jewish leaders into the position of being God-like creatures. And there is no doubt in my mind that this is how and why America's Christian pastors of the boob tube got on their dumbbell podiums and told their flocks of sheep to worship the Jew like a God. But this is the kind of pornography to which no child should ever be exposed as you can already see the effect of it on the children who grew up believing you do not achieve success in life by working or praying; you achieve it by kissing up to a Jew, if not do worse than that.

Thus, for the President of the United States to say that we must: “condemn the hate we see when ... the Holocaust is denied” is to suggest that a query into that historical event is akin to violating the dogma of the super religion they call Rabbinical Judaism, perhaps a sacrilegious act that is so sinful, one would go to hell for it. Not only that but the American President seems to suggest that the mere fact of making a query about the Holocaust is to commit an act of hate.

No, Mr. President, the Holocaust is not a dogma; it is a historical event that is open to query like any other historical event. And the President of Iran has every goddamn right to ask questions about it, and you have no right to bomb his country because he committed that heresy – if this is what questioning the Holocaust has become in America.

In fact, Sir, if you bomb Iran, you will have committed the ultimate act of hate that will kill Iranians and Americans alike. Furthermore, to redeem itself, such act of madness will transform the denial of the Holocaust into a dogma to which every human being will aspire to adhere for the next thousand years and beyond. That line of thinking, Mr. President, is a self-defeating proposition no matter what excuse you find for it.

So then, what was the big lesson that I learned over the years studying such events? I learned that Christianity and Islam have one common bond you do not find in Judaism. It is the power to forgive. When you forgive, you start anew. When you don't, you keep going till a catastrophic event stops you.

This is why Christianity and Islam always had a new beginning despite their shortcomings. Such was never the case with the Jews whose religion absolutely forbids them from forgiving anything at all. And this is why these people never stop repeating the provocations that send them to their calamitous end each and every time.

Our duty now is to save them from themselves. And we do so not by pandering to them but with tough love.

Romney And The Mideast Cultural Revolution

The Chinese had their cultural revolution a while ago, and look what came of it. The Arabs and the Muslims are having their twin cultural and political revolutions at this time; imagine what will come of them. While you do this, think of the place that America used to occupy at the time of the Chinese revolution, producing as it did 80% of the world's industrial output. And compare this with the place that America occupies today, producing as it does 10% of the world's industrial output – one eighth what it used to be when you measure things in relative terms.

Now, go back to the literature and the audio-visuals of that time, and you will see for yourself that no one in America was as delusional as some people are today. In fact, none of the political or intellectual giants in the Eisenhower-Kennedy epoch thought that America could shape the events in China by the sheer power of the will or by the words that its leaders might utter or by the gunboats of diplomacy they might deploy near the shores of China. Instead, everyone in America was wise enough to stand back as did most other people in Japan, in Europe and everywhere else in the world to look at China's history take its course as the events over there were unfolding in accordance with their natural rhythm.

Contrast this with what you read today on the pages of many publications, and what you hear and see in the audio-visuals of networks affiliated with the Neocon movement in America where the political and intellectual midgets live and feed on each other like a swarm of cannibalistic bugs. These characters never stop expressing an opinion that suits every half-cycle of the news, telling each other and the public how certain they are that America's leaders would do well to bark their frustration at the Arabs and the Muslims so as to frighten them and put them in the places they picked for them.

These Neocon characters get a kick fantasizing about and psyching themselves into visualizing the peoples of the Arab and the Muslim worlds as being frail little things trembling with fear as they hear the warnings and they listen to the lectures and the dictates that come to their ears from the Neocon high command. Such orders would be delivered to them by one American official or another, even the President of the United States of America, something he would do whether he believes in the Neocon philosophy or he wishes to see their political power base obliterated.

Mind boggling, you think to yourself, but how did all this happen? How could a handful of nobodies with the collective IQ of a bug infiltrate a superpower and take it over from the inside with such ease? The answer is that you can do it by igniting a slow burning cultural revolution in the society you aim to transform and turn it to your liking. While doing this, you bring the society under your control one small step at a time by deceiving its people every step of the way as would a magician that makes the audience believe it is seeing one thing when in fact it is seeing something else.

The Neocons are the magicians who should, in all fairness, be called cultural engineers of the turncoat variety because they have the ability to change their color spontaneously so as to instantly satisfy the demands of a changing situation. The trick they employ most often is to take advantage of the deficiencies they uncover in the society they aim to transform and bring under their control. When these people first came to America as refugees, fleeing as they did the pogroms and holocausts inflicted on them in Europe for being Jews, they discovered that America had a deficiency which is common to all human beings, and they exploited it.

To understand how they did this, we need to know that there is a time to get close to the trees and look at their minutia; and there is a time to step back and look at the entire forest. It happens, however, that the human brain suffers from a kind of inertia which tends to keep it in its current mode. That is, if we are in the habit of looking at the minutia of the things we observe, we tend to stay in this mode thus have trouble stepping back to look at the things from a distance. But if we are in the habit of looking at things from a wide perspective, we tend to stay in this mode and resist looking at the minutia of the things.

This is one deficiency in the character of human beings but not the only one to hinder our quest to create a world more perfect than what we have now. Another deficiency that is plaguing our species is the fact that many of our bad habits are contagious and liable to spread like wildfire. This makes it so that all human cultures tend to rise as much on the bad habits that we transmit to each other as they do on the great accomplishments we consider to be exemplary.

Given that the most productive way to look at something is to see both the forest and the trees at the same time, our inability to do so with ease has resulted in that we constructed a world that can easily be polarized by a flimsy reason. And no one is more apt to suffer from this inability than do the politicians of America who are trained by their handlers to be one dimensional in their views, one-liners in their speeches and one-of-a-kind idiots in their pronouncements. This is the reality that the Jewish leaders have taken advantage of to slowly bring the American society under their control.

To get there, the Neocons have operated not under their own banner but under the liberal, the conservative and the independent banners, accusing a handful of Arab and Muslim kids, they call Islamists, of working to control the Arab and Muslim societies, having the ultimate aim to control America and the World. Thus, the Neocons have managed to pit the American military against those kids, a trick that made it easy for them to gain control of America and slowly transform it into the irrelevant thing it has become. If you want to witness a spectacle of this nature, look at the Congress of the United States when it goes into action. You will see not political sausage in the making – which is what they pretend they are showing you -- but see a cesspool of dying notions and habits begging to be put out of their misery.

And while all this is happening in America, the societies in the Arab and the Muslim worlds move on with their cultural and political revolutions. They do it quietly most of the time, do it rowdily some of the time, and they erupt in the spasms we see in the news on some occasions. But having participated in the provocation of the latter situation, the Jews tell the Americans that the cure to their irrelevance is to do more of the things that made them irrelevant in the first place. Bark at the Arabs and the Muslims, they say, and the world will admire you as it did Eisenhower and Kennedy. Bark ... bark again ... and bark some more, they advise, and the old glory will return to America, they promise again and again.

You can see the effect of this work in the way that the Neocons have groomed a candidate to run for President of the United States and be their poodle in the White House. He is Mitt Romney who has no compunction throwing 47% of the American population under the bus, accusing these people of choosing to live like victims. And while treating 150 million Americans in this way, he never ceases to lament what he falsely accuses President Obama of doing which is to throw 5 million Jews living in Israel under the bus. This act victimizes the culturally superior people out there, says he, an intolerable situation in his view.

Thus, it can be seen that for every Israeli Jew that Romney holds in high esteem and wishes to serve and protect, he despises 30 red-blooded Americans of any faith or skin color because in his eyes, the Americans are victims by their own choosing while the Jews are victims by the failure of the American President to protect them, a deficiency he intends to correct. Well then, cry if you feel like it, my friend or laugh if you feel like it or do both if you feel like it. You have the right as well as the compelling reason to do any or both of these.

Thus, the Romney position has been that he wants the people of America to elect him so that he may throw under the bus the American victims who would not fight and die for Israel trying to protect it from Iran or anyone else. He will put the Jews of Israel inside the bus to sit comfortably in the passenger seats; even let them occupy the driver seat and take control of the superpower. And he will do so despite the fact that the Neocons have admitted that their ultimate aim is to take control of the American military so as to conquer the world and turn it into a Pax Americana that will be safe for the Jews to live in, and live like the gods described by the league of American television pastors.

Moreover, having gone to Israel as candidate to be bribed over there with American taxpayer money, he now promises to make Israel his first destination abroad if and when elected President. In fact, there is nothing that Romney will do for America that is not beneficial to Israel. He will send money and weapons to the Israelis. He will take advice and commands from their leaders. And he will launch a war against anyone they say they do not like – which is just about every living human being on this planet.

As to the Arab and Muslim cultural and political revolutions, they must be stopped here and now because these people are on their way to become like China. This gives the Jews of Israel and the self appointed Jewish leaders in America the sense that destiny is once again victimizing them, thus the need for the newest project they came up with. It is to pit the strength of superpower America against the power of destiny, and force history to change its course. Imagine that if you can.

It takes a lunatic to go along with a scheme like this, and they found the right one in the person of Mitt Romney.