It's again the Sound of one Hand clapping

Years ago when I was in first year college taking an introductory course in something I cannot remember what, the prof, who was into Oriental philosophies, would at times go off on a tangent and say something about the Orient. One of the things that stuck in my mind was the Zen saying: “Let's hear the sound of one hand clapping.” I cannot now repeat the original philosophy behind that saying because what happened subsequently is that I developed a personal folklore around it … which is certainly different from what Zen Buddhism had intended.

The cardinal number 2 was the nexus that took me from the Zen saying to the development of my folklore. That's because it takes 2 hands to clap, and there are 2 sides to every story. As it happened at the time, the stories that interested me most were being told not from both sides but form only one side. They sounded like one hand doing (or trying to do) the clapping. Every article I read on the Middle East and every discussion I monitored on radio or television were told from the Jewish side only.

The view I had about “Western Liberal Democracy” being a continuing Hegelian dialectic of give-and-take till you reach a consensus that both sides can live with, was shattered and replaced with the image of a farce that is not written on paper but improvised on the spot to suit every occasion. In my view, Western Liberal Democracy had been stripped of whatever principles may have held it, and left with the one principle that makes it tick now. It is the one I see with my own eyes; that which can only be described as a sick Jewish joke. It is this: Everything that is Jewish is good even if it is bad, and everything that is not Jewish is bad even if it is good. Period. Question this arrangement at your own peril for, the punishment is life banishment from the face of the Earth.

But then, the internet came along and gave voice to those who saw a form of journalistic pornography in a setup like that of a CNN studio being swarmed by Jews who would be there to discuss Arab matters without a single Arab being present, or being there to discuss American matters without a “mainstream American” being present. Even though CNN refused to modernize its format, the fact that it was challenged by someone represented a refreshing development to many people.

Alas, it did not take long for someone to push back against this development. One of those pushing back is Daniel Pipes who wrote an article in which the tendency is on full display. Written under the title: “Fumes of Fantasy,” the article also comes under the subtitle: “A visit with Swedish foreign-affairs officials produces quiet clashes on Middle East policy.” It was published on November 17, 2014 in National Review Online.

Pipes does not say what the occasion is for writing this article at this time but the fact is that Sweden has just recognized Palestine as a state, and the command was issued for the Jewish Fifth Columns in every country where they exist, to come out of their sleep and attack Sweden. So, Daniel Pipes says that he “recently” visited Sweden where he held discussions with two senior members of the Foreign Ministry, a summary of which he “paraphrases” in this article.

The discussion with the first “senior” but unnamed official pertained to the Iranian nuclear program. As to the discussion with the second “senior” and still unnamed official pertained to the Arab-Israeli conflict … but get this now – he had this discussion “in the context of the Swedish government's 'very recent' decision to recognize a state of Palestine.” Well, given that there is a difference in timing between recent and very recent, Pipes is obligated to give details of the timeline that allowed him to be in Sweden and discuss an event that did not happen till later … or else, people will know that this whole thing is a hoax, another Jewish sick joke.

Now, Pipes who pretends to speak for a segment of American society called Conservative Right, ends his article as follows: “This complete disagreement on facts, interpretations, and predictions points to an enormous and ever-widening gap between countries and governments founded on like values.” He goes on to say that the Swedes and others like them “prefer fumes of fantasy” instead of being realistic and friendly. And this leaves him discouraged about the future of Europe, he says in a sad tone. And so he wonders: “What disaster will it take to awaken the Swedes?”

Well, I have a suggestion for you, Daniel. How about growing a second hand so that you may clap the two and awaken the Swedes as well as the other Europeans who will soon follow suit. And maybe, just maybe, having two hands will make you see that there are two sides to every story … and seek to join them instead of trying to make them join you.

The Jewish Cocoon of self-Destruction

They are their own worst enemies because no matter how much education they acquire, and no matter how high a post they have occupied on previous occasions, they keep themselves prisoners inside a cocoon where they remain cut-off from the rest of the world if not physically, at least mentally and emotionally.

They build the cocoon with a wall so thick, even sunlight cannot penetrate it, and they cannot see outside either. The result is that they fail to observe the world that is, but see a scary world of their own imagination; one that is out to get them. These are the Jews who have spent three and a half millenniums making life on this planet miserable for themselves and for the rest of humanity.

Two of them, Barry A. Fisher who is an attorney specializing in human rights issues, and Peter Sichrovsky who was at one time a diplomat and a member of the European Parliament but is now a journalist and a writer, have written an article together. It shows what hopeless situation these people put themselves in as they miss every opportunity they get to leave the cocoon and share with the rest of humanity the life adventure that we call peaceful coexistence.

The title of the article they wrote is: “Sweden's 'State of Palestine' Offense,” having also a subtitle that reads: “Before the rest of the European Union follows suit, members may want to consider the Swedes' history.” It was published on November 17, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal. The authors begin by complaining that Sweden has recognized the State of Palestine despite two reasons, they say, should have prohibited such move. One reason is that the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians stipulates that the end of occupation can only be negotiated between the parties. The other reason is that Palestine does not meet the traditional criteria for recognition as a state, having no control over a defined territory and population.

This being in contradiction to Sweden's move, you would think that the lawyer, diplomat, member of parliament, journalist and writer which they are – would explain how it is that Sweden did what it did, and that several other European nations are poised to follow suit. Well? Do they explain the contradiction? No, absolutely not. What they do instead is write several paragraphs to pave the way for the delivery of their last sentence: “Britain, France and Spain would do well to ponder the Swedish example before following it.” How disappointing!

But why ponder? Because Fisher and Sichrovsky say that the image the world has of Sweden is a false one. That nation is not in reality what the world sees, they say. Sweden is not principled or evenhanded, which is why it must not be viewed as a leader in international policy, they advise. And so they explain that Sweden has a history which is less benign than the image it projects of itself. Tired of this load of irrelevance, you ask: What has that got to do with the matter of ending the occupation? Is the right of the Palestinians to a nation of their own predicated on the merit of their case, or is it based on the resolution of an allegation to the effect that Sweden is uglier than it looks?

Fisher and Sichrovsky do not answer those questions because Jewish logic does not allow reasoning by honest debate. What they do instead, is spew a 650-word diatribe in which they badmouth Sweden as if it were the worst thing that happened to planet Earth. They paint the country as an antisemitic sympathizer of current terrorist organizations. They also claim that Sweden had forged an alliance with the Nazis and maintained a strong relationship with them throughout the Second World War while pretending to be neutral.

There is worse to Sweden's history, they say. Going as far back as 1685, the Jews were prohibited in Sweden, a condition that lasted two and a quarter centuries. In more recent times, the country dragged negotiations relating to Dutch gold restitution, an act that delayed the cause of justice. Sweden could have been nailed for this in a US court, they advise, except that other controversies gave the country the chance to get away with evil. And this has had the effect of Sweden's “undeserved image of purity remain[ing] largely intact.”

This is why, the two influential Jews go on to say, the occupation of Palestine must continue, and why the Palestinian people must not have a country of their own. And so, I ask the readers this question: Do you now see what the highest form of Jewish logic looks like?

And being led by characters like these, how can anyone be surprised that Jews always end up in the proverbial gas chamber and oven? It is not antisemitism; it is what the quacks say and do in the name of others.

'See something, say something' is working

Thirteen years after 9/11, the Americans are again fearful of attacks that would be committed by foreigners who might slip into the country, or by local lone wolves who might be influenced by foreign terrorists. For this reason, the authorities have suggested that if you “see something, say something” so that the thing may be investigated and dealt with in time. To my knowledge, no data has been released indicating to what extent the suggestion has worked in America.

Even though I never heard of authorities in Egypt making a similar suggestion to their people, it seems that the people did it on their own, and the thing is working well for them. This is what an Egyptian journalist, Sara Khorshid, says has happened to her and her sister in an article that came under the title: “Egypt's New Police State,” published on November 17, 2014 in the New York Times.

I do not doubt that the story she relates is accurate; what concerns me is her naïveté, a trait I fear may land her in trouble she does not see coming. She drops clues everywhere in the article indicating that she is being manipulated by influences – not the kind that the American authorities fear – but the kind that the nation of Egypt should start worrying about. The first clue came in her first sentence where she says: “the 1960s when Gamal Abdel Nasser set a precedent for the Arab world by creating a police state...” The truth is that she wasn't born yet in the 1960s, I lived in Egypt for seven years at the time, and nothing like a police state has ever existed there under Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Later in the article, she repeats the accusation and adds something new: “we are regressing to the 1960s when sons and daughters were known to call the police on their parents.” Well, this is what was said happened in some places in Eastern Europe when they were under Soviet occupation. Living here in Canada, I was told by recruiters who represented the Canadian Jewish Congress, stories about children in Eastern Europe that turned their parents to the authorities. Those recruiters wanted me to write the kind of articles that Khorshid has written, warning that the Arab World was on its way to becoming like Eastern Europe. And for nearly fifty years, I have been telling them to take a hike.

Nasser was their boogeyman, and his biggest sin was that he tried to unite the Arab nations who were then bickering among themselves, though not as violently as they do now. Still, the Jews wanted to split them by getting them away from Egypt at any cost. And so, they did their work by warning in every manner they could – including the use of pirate radio stations – that Nasser was bad for the region.

At the same time, they wanted the people of Egypt to turn against their President by telling them he had authoritarian tendencies that could someday be unleashed against ordinary citizens. Needless to say that nobody I know listened to this propaganda, and no incident was ever reported to indicate that someone was influenced by it.

All such clues, and the mention of “a hypernationalist atmosphere” dropped by Sara Khorshid in her article form the Jewish signature that says to me she has been imbued with their propaganda. It is the most virulent kind that wants nothing less for Egypt than to become a basket case like the worst of the neighbors. Thus, while the Egyptian authorities may be worried about the hard terrorists that are seen, and can be fought with tanks and helicopters, a more insidious threat, carried out by the worldwide Jewish terror machine, has already infiltrated the country and, like a mole, is eating it from the inside.

This time, Sara, her sister and their foreign guest had a two-hour experience that may have been unpleasant, but nowhere near as unpleasant as the experience that was felt by people wearing the wrong kind of garb being yanked off the plane while on their way to a religious gathering in Florida. They were taken to a police station, interrogated, beaten and left without food or water for several hours before they were let go without an apology or an explanation. Sara, her sister and their guest should thank the stars for being in civilized Egypt and not anywhere near North America.

And be careful, Sara. Be careful whose propaganda you're mouthing off not knowing why you're being stuffed with it. The moment they feel you're no longer useful to them; they'll spit you out like disgusting mucus. It's not worth it playing their game.

Economic Principles for a national Agenda

Wherever you stand on the political spectrum, you should be able to differentiate between (1) what potential the country has to produce wealth and what it actually delivers. And (2) what system should be used to produce goods and services at maximum level and distribute the wealth as equitably as possible.

Each time there was a serious debate on point (1) or point (2), the discussion inevitably linked the two points because the debaters instinctively felt that the level of efficiency which goes into the production of goods and services is determined by the way that these products are eventually distributed. This means the distribution of the wealth dictates how efficiently it is produced. In turn, the linkage took the discussion into the kind of government that can deliver the best results.

The political spectrum being wide from end to end, it has two extremes which are opposed to each other in many ways. But there are also an infinite number of positions between the two extremes where principles from both sides are mixed in a variety of ways. Thus, the best approach we can take to understand what the debaters wrestle with instinctively as they verbalize the concepts that carry their arguments, is to study the extremes of the spectrum with the proviso that in real life, nobody is really that extreme.

At one end of the spectrum, there is the Conservative Right which believes in the idea that some people are born with the entrepreneurial spirit. They know how to organize events and people to produce goods and services at maximum efficiency. When they are in charge of the economy, the country becomes wealthy, and everyone in it benefits because the wealth trickles down to all, including those who are unable to work.

For this to happen, you need to keep the workforce striving at all time to obtain more because it requires more to live on. This means never to give the workers so much as to become complacent. If this leads to a situation where the rich get to keep most of the wealth, so be it. But the wealthy are the type that set-up private charities to look after the poor, the sick, the old, the widows and the orphans. In the end, everyone has the chance to rise to he top while no one is deprived of the necessities of life. It is an ideal situation.

For this system to work, the government must be kept small for two reasons. One is that the money it would spend is better left in the hands of entrepreneurs who will make better use of it. The other is that the government must be prevented from redistributing the wealth because experience has shown that when this happens, it creates a powerful incentive for the workers to fall into complacency. They are encouraged to work less or not at all, and this leads to the impoverishment of the country, and everyone in it.

At the other end of the spectrum, there is the Progressive Left which believes in the idea that all people are born with a mix of talent and ambitions. No matter what they choose to do in life, they must be remunerated equitably, and not kept barely above starvation levels as an incentive for them to try producing more whether or not they can. Starvation wage is an old idea that died when the Age of Enlightenment dawned on the world. And the idea must never be revived.

The truth is that people give their maximum when they are well treated, not when they are whipped as modern slaves or deprived of their rights. Also, experience has shown that growth in the economy has occurred every time that the workers who produce it were treated well. This, in turn, has allowed science and technology to progress, which is why we are able to live at today's level of civilization. If you reintroduce the old ways of coercion and serfdom, the economy will deteriorate and go back to a level that none of us can live under.

Now that significant change has come to the system of governance in the United States of America, a debate on the economy is about to flare. It would be helpful for all sides to remember that their country has the potential to adequately feed, clothe, shelter, educate and care for everyone in it. The idea is to fashion a system that will produce goods and services at a maximum level of efficiency, and distribute them at a maximum level of equity.

Therefore, it must be acknowledged that people are not the same everywhere. Some do their duty because they are self-motivated, while others must be nudged and made to meet their obligations. Thus, the system to fashion must take into account these differences, remunerating each in accordance with how much they produce. But no one, no matter their circumstance, will be allowed to fall between the cracks or be deprived of a minimum level of comfort.

Jewish Mutineers telling Congress to mutiny

There is nothing more dangerous to a ship of state than a handful of its crew staging a mutiny trying to seize control of it in an effort to divert it to a different destination. Ever since ancient Egypt, this has been the fate of every powerful country that took in a critical mass of Jews and gave them the privilege of full citizenship even when they displayed allegiance to something else somewhere else.

Convinced they are executing the commands of a God that's taking them to the ultimate Nirvana, the Jews always found themselves at a disadvantage when the citizens of the country they were trying to commandeer, discovered what they were up to, and dealt with them in accordance with local customs. And no God ever came to the rescue the way that the Jews had imagined and hoped for. In fact, they lost every encounter they had, yet never repented because they saw each defeat as a reason to stage another attempt in another country.

They are doing it to America this time, and all indications are to the effect that despite three and a half thousand years of heart wrenching failures, the Jews still have not learned a thing with regard to what they must do to get along with the human race, and live a normal life like everyone else. You can see this inability to learn in two articles that were written on the subject of America's relation with the rest of the world … this time with Iran and the countries in that Middle Eastern neighborhood.

The first article was written by John Bolton under the title: “Iran's nukes: Too desperate for a deal” and was published on November 13, 2014 in New York Post. The second was written by Lee Smith under the title: “Caving to Iran” and was published on November 14, 2014 in the Weekly Standard. Given that neither writer is privy to the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran, the double assertion that the White House is caving because it is desperate, says that the desperation is among the Jews who see their power to create mayhem in the world being eroded each day ... without a God or an America coming to help them bring about apocalypse.

The formula they use to achieve their aim is adapted to suit each occasion, but the ingredients of deception and defamation are used in the construction of every variation. This time the deception they came up with has been to claim that the Sunni Arabs are allied with Israel. As to the defamation, it has been to claim that President Barack Obama is prepared to sacrifice the country to build a legacy by which the future will remember him.

Well, what the Jews are doing now is the sort of thing that turned people against them everywhere they went, every time they opened their mouth. What they have not learned, even after being in the wilderness during all these centuries, is that if they can fool some people immediately, they cannot fool history for ever. Thus, the claim that the Sunni Arabs are allied with them against the Persians is phony like their earlier claim to the effect that the Shiite Persians were allied with them against the Sunni Arabs. They were dishonest then, they are dishonest now, and history has so recorded.

Another thing they are doing now is insult the intelligence of their readers. To say that Obama would take a bad deal and use it to build a shiny legacy for himself is to say that history can be conned. The Jews may believe that this is doable – which is probably why they always ended up in the pickle – but no one with an average IQ believes that you can do bad things and be rewarded for them when time has unmasked you.

What remains to do now is review the Bolton article to see that his narrative is constructed around notions of lunacy to the effect that (1) the Iranians are evil people despite the fact that they were – not long ago – allied with Israel; (2) Israel knows the new and improved truth, and wants to finish off Iran to save the world, including America; (3) the Arabs are terrified of Iran and want America to bomb it but will not say so publicly; (4) Obama is deluding himself into believing that the Iranians are normal people who can be trusted. It is that he is blinded by the desire to have a defective deal which history will believe is a good deal … according to Bolton.

Then review the Smith article and you'll find that his narrative is constructed around notions of psychosis to the effect that (1) Obama has already given the Iranians everything they wanted; (2) a nuclear deal will only formalize this cave-in; (3) Obama will get the Persian perestroika he has been dreaming about; (4) the Iranians will get the bomb they have been dreaming about and (5) the American Congress must get involved to bust the two dreams and give the Jews another chance to bring about the cherished apocalypse.

He is calling on Congressmen to join a treasonous mutiny against their own government.

RT more pro-American than Fox News

The editors of the Wall Street Journal (which is the print sister publication of the audio-visual network calling itself Fox News) know how to outdo themselves when it comes to the expression of irony. Here is a pair – known as the Murdochian twins – giving itself the task of mouth-attacking America with a bellyful of vitriol; never taking a respite but replenishing itself and spewing the poison non-stop seven days a week, every week of the year for six long years already.

You can read the latest irony of ironies on the editorial page of the Journal; a piece that came under the title: “Putin's Disinformation Matrix” and the subtitle: “The Kremlin's English-language TV organ offers Britain its signature blend of propaganda and tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorizing.” It was published on November 15, 2014. Notice that this work is an attack on Russia, disguised as an attack on Putin and the Kremlin. Likewise, you'll have noticed that the attack on America always came disguised as an attack on Obama and the White House.

Look what they say about Russia Today (RT) which echoes what has been said about the Murdochian pair all along: “Welcome to Putin's disinformation matrix … techniques include mobilizing thousands of online 'trolls,' cultivating sympathetic political cranks abroad, and exploiting Western freedom of speech and public diplomacy to advance Moscow's illiberal aims.” Notice how close this is to the following: “Welcome to Murdoch's disinformation matrix … techniques include mobilizing thousands of Twitter 'trolls,' cultivating crank contributors at home, and exploiting American freedom of speech and public discourse to advance Murdoch's right wing and warmongering agenda.”

And like RT which boasts: “its content has received a billion views, making it one of the most-watched channels,” so does the Foxy channel of the Murdoch Empire which boasts that its content is attracting more viewers in America than any other network. And so, the editors of the Journal go on to explain: “RT is ideologically promiscuous and 'hybridic.' The channel might feature far-right Holocaust denier, and the next minute invite a far-left British MP to discuss Ukraine.”

And that is not much different from what has been said about the Fox News promiscuous trick of hiring “lapsed” former liberals to attack Obama and his White House. Sometimes these characters are featured as a pair echoing each other while agreeing with the host of the show. And sometimes, one would be pitted against a right wing opposite who will get rescued by the host when he or she begins to lose the argument.

The parallel between the Putinists and the Murdochians does not stop here. Look what else the editors of the Wall Street Journal say: “[On] concepts such as 'democracy,' 'human rights' and 'sovereignty' the Putinists use them playfully to suggest that not even the West believes them. The point is rarely to persuade. It is to muddle and confuse.” Which is copycatted by the Fox News Murdochians who continually mention concepts such as truth telling, honesty and transparency with regard to Fast-and-Furious, Benghazi and the IRS in such a way as to muddle the issues and confuse the audiences rather than attain a nobler goal.

And in the same way that the editors of the Journal believe “RT segments and content are self discrediting, though they will always find credulous viewers,” the Journal editors must also believe that the content of the Fox News hate propaganda against America is self-discrediting even if it is made to look like an attack on Obama and his government. But if it is true that “vulnerable states on Europe's eastern periphery and the South Caucasus are a different matter,” it must also be true that in some states of the American Deep South and Mid-West, Murdochian voices can play an outsize role in tilting public opinion in Mr. Murdoch's way.

And so, the editors of the Journal end their piece with this advice: “Propaganda is integrated with the Kremlin's model of ambiguous warfare. Western governments shouldn't overreact to RT's presence. But they [need to] modernize their public diplomacy to ensure that accurate reporting stands a chance amid the blizzard of Moscow's lies.”

Likewise, hate propaganda is integrated with the Murdochian model of ambiguous warfare on America. Obama's government shouldn't overreact to Fox's presence. But the White House needs to revamp its message to ensure that accurate reporting stands a chance amid the blizzard of the evil twins: Fox News and Wall Street Journal.

If the twins can be made to soften up and be more like RT, they will have improved by a factor of ten.

The Moaning that breeds more Reasons to moan

What would you say about a guy whom you counsel: “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging” but then see him inside a hole and digging feverishly? You'll say he is suffering from low intelligence, and probably from being the victim of bad advice too. And this, my friend, is the situation of the Jewish leaders who fan the flames of antisemitism by doing what they call combating antisemitism.

When you reflect long and hard about the subject, you reach the conclusion that the leaders of the Jews are the ones dragging the rank and file into the morass of hating and being hated to keep feeding an agenda whose purpose is to send the Jews ever deeper into a hole they would dig for themselves, thus remain dependent on leaders who say they protect them from the ravages of a human species that is suffering from an incurable disease called antisemitism.

This is what the Jewish perpetual hate machine is made of. An example demonstrating how it works is the article that was written by Daniel Baer under the title: “Ignoring Anti-Semitism Won't Make It Go Away” and the subtitle: “Europe's leaders have a duty to face the hatred head on.” It was published on November 14, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.

The analogy of the effort to combat antisemitism being an exact parallel to digging the self deeper into a hole to get out of it, jumps at you when juxtaposing that title and that subtitle with the following passage in the article: “Some of the survey's findings are staggering: Fifty percent of those surveyed in Switzerland, 52% in Austria and 61% in Hungary believe that 'Jews still talk too much about what happened to them during the Holocaust.'”

Being the logical person that you are, you conclude that talking incessantly about antisemitism is what fuels antisemitism. You also realize that the Jewish leaders are increasingly becoming irrelevant in the eyes of a rank and file that is beginning to grasp the fact its leaders are playing the demonic and cowardly game of walking them to the edge of the precipice and telling them: “hang on tightly to us or you'll end up down there.” Also, to offset their state of irrelevance, the Jewish leaders have come up with the idea of calling on Europe's political leaders “to face the hatred head on” by telling them they have the duty to do so.

Daniel Baer is doing just that in the article while buttressing his argument with a lament that should alert him to the fact that he is doing the opposite of what needs to be done. First, he reports that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe met 10 years ago and pledged to combat antisemitism. He goes on to say that 58 countries were represented then, 18 by foreign ministers or other cabinet-level officials. And his lament is that this year, only 38 countries attended, and only 6 sent ministers. He refuses to face the fact that this is caused by fatigue that was developed against perpetual moaning. Thus, he cannot see that the way to mitigate this condition is to call a moratorium on the tiresome Jewish habit.

Instead, he takes solace in that: “Several European leaders have recently spoken out condemning anti-Semitism.” He then does the very Jewish thing which reminds ordinary people that when you give the Jew a finger, he asks for the whole arm. Here is Daniel Baer's expression of this truism: “But much more is needed.”

Why so? Why does he believe that much more is needed? Because “anti-Semitism remains at worrying levels across Europe despite the many attempts to combat it,” he says. What he fails to see is that he advocates something which is worse than digging deeper into the hole from which he tries to come out. What he does is throw gasoline on the fire from which he tries to escape.

He goes on to lament: “Attacks against Jews have spiked” and “The problem is acute." But how does he propose to solve the problem? By doing more of what has proven to aggravate the problem: “One place to start is by acknowledging that anti-Semitism is happening, condemning it publicly whenever it arises, and fighting it.”

But what will that do? Well, history and logic say that the 50% in Switzerland, 52% in Austria and 61% in Hungary that had it up to here with Jewish moaning will increase. And to them will be added more Europeans, and more of everyone else among a human species whose immune system is forced to develop an antidote called apathy, to combat the incessant Jewish moaning that is getting under skins of every color.