How the Definition of GDP can tell a big Lie

Paul Krugman wrote an article under the title: “How Trump Lost His Trade War,” and the subtitle: “On speaking loudly and carrying a small stick.” It was published on December 16, 2019 in The New York Times.

Somewhere in the middle of the article, speaking of China, Krugman says the following: “America was never going to succeed in bullying a nation whose economy is by some measures, larger than ours.” What is he talking about when it is known that America's GDP is 3 or 4 times the size of China's?

Yes, that's what's known. When assessed in accordance with the current definition of GDP, and when measured in dollar terms, America's GDP comes up to something like 21 trillion dollars whereas that of China comes up to a value that's fixed at between 4 or 6 trillion dollars depending on who's doing the counting, and what the Dollar/Yuan exchange rate is on the day of counting. But is this accurate?

To get a better idea of what's going on, we imagine the following scenario about three acquaintances that meet in the opulent home of one of them, where each tells the story of what he did on that day.

Character # 1: I'm just an upper-middle-class Joe as you know. So, I went to work at eight o'clock in the morning where I worked till noon. I took an hour off for lunch, which I spent at the local restaurant. I returned to work where I did four more hours of chores, and went home at five o'clock in the afternoon. All in all, my moves on this day, including the restaurant meal I had and the tip I left for the waitress, contributed about 1,000 dollars-worth of activities to the GDP of the nation.

Character # 2: I own a small business as you know. So, I went to my office early in the morning and prepared a work schedule for the day ahead, to be completed by the dozen employees that make-up my team. I explained the schedule to my shop supervisor, and went with him through the shop to make sure he was giving the right instructions to each employee. I inspected some of the products they started making, and they were to specification. This took half of my day. After that, I went to the shopping mall where I dined, wined and shopped, and then went home. All in all, my activities on this day, aside from those of my employees, contributed about 4,000 dollars to the GDP of the nation.

Character # 3: I own this house as you know, which I inherited together with a substantial sum of money that's invested in various instruments. I don't have to do more than keep an eye on my investment –– I count my money, if you prefer –– and spend the interest that it yields. So, I woke up late this morning, as I always do, given that I was out till the wee hours of the morning having a good time. I had a fancy brunch in the Cleopatra Room of the nearby Caesar Hotel, then went to participate in the discussion that the local art gallery is having with regard to the possible return of an artwork, claimed to have been stolen. After that, I went across town where I had an early dinner in one of those T&A outfits where I tipped a waitress that was endowed with a magnificent pair, with a pair of hundred-dollar bills. Then, I came here to meet you guys. All in all, my activities on this day, including my tip to the waitress, added 8,000 dollars to the GDP of the nation.

As you can see, my dear reader, the first character produced goods and/or services for eight solid hours during that day. This is actual wealth that benefits the nation. As to the second character, he acted as a producer of wealth for only half the day. Even though he acted as a consumer, during the other half of the day, his activities were counted as wealth-producing, and were falsely added to the GDP of the nation. As to the third character, he acted like a consumer all day long, producing no wealth at all. And yet, every move he made as a consumer, including his fascination with the breast of the waitress, were counted as wealth that added a big (fictitious) amount to the GDP of the nation.

In the way that the GDP is counted in America, the activities of these three men came up to 13,000 dollars for the day. In China, they would only count the 1,000 dollars of the first character, and half of the second character's 4,000 dollars for a total of 3,000 dollars –– as opposed to America’s 13,000. And this is why you see a large discrepancy in the GDP of the two nations even if they enjoy roughly the same standard of living, providing the same level of health care for their citizens, the same level of education for their children, and the same level of services for everyone.

In addition to that, if you apply to America the sort of accounting they do in China, you'll also have to count as expense-incurring activities –– as opposed to productive activities –– the money that is spent on the military, the national guard, the coast guard, the police, the legal and prison systems, as well as the health care, the education and the other services which are spent on the population without producing real wealth. If you do this, you'll find that when it comes to producing real wealth and not fluff, China is ahead of the United States. And that's what Paul Krugman was referring to when he indicated that by some measures, China's GDP could prove to be larger than that of America.

How much in Trouble is the American Economy?

Writing a column in the Washington Post edition of December 15, 2019, Robert J. Samuelson points to a problem in the American economy, and laments that the way to explain it no longer works. This means we don't even understand why the problem exists therefore we cannot begin to work on a remedy.

Samuelson says that the Phillips Curve corresponded nicely with the standard explanation of Economics 101 as to why wages rose when unemployment declined. He put it this way: “With low unemployment, workers can quit their jobs and find something better … Companies have to boost wages to attract new workers or keep the ones they got.” But this no longer works, he went on to say.

So the question to ask is this: Why is it that in this era of low unemployment, the wages are stagnant? Samuelson points out that nominally, the wages actually went up a little, but just enough to offset the losses that were caused by inflation. In real terms, however, it can be said that the Phillips Curve has flattened out. Samuelson dismisses the various theories that came out to explain the phenomenon. He even came up with an explanation of his own, but then quickly refuted it. And he ended the discussion by saying that, “the most truthful answer to nearly all these questions is: We don't know”.

In fact, before we can answer the question as to why the Phillips Curve has flattened, we need to answer another question. It is this: Why is it that all these people could not figure out what's going on. And the answer is simple: They behaved like someone that's inside a box and trying to figure out what's on the outside without looking outside. These people have been thinking in terms of theorems that used to work in situations that no longer exist. Now, they happen to be in a new situation, and they don't even realize it.

The current situation is characterized by a global economy with investors that boast as much loyalty for their homeland as a snake has for the mouse that has been feeding him. They don't think in terms of a labor market that's defined by the borders of the jurisdiction in which they find themselves; they have their eyes and hearts on the jurisdictions that offer them cheap labor and a high return for their investments.

But this does not mean they'll burn the bridges they established over the decades with the jurisdictions that gave them so many opportunities in the past, and can still be useful to them in the future. And so, while these investors will not pay the workers of the old jurisdictions much higher wages than they would overseas workers, they will make them believe they are being pampered. They'll do so by promoting say, a mail-room clerk to a teller, and giving him or her the title of customer account specialist or some such grandiose name to inflate their ego. They'll pay them more than they did for working in the mail-room, but less than the teller they are replacing.

This is how the entrepreneurial-investors operate these days. In fact, their tricks have caused the deep transformation of the advanced economies, especially the American. For example, they relocated much of what is manufacturing to the low wage-countries, and relied on the misnaming of some service industries to make it sound like they did not hollow out America of its industries. The most egregious example of this, has been to call “technology” what is nothing more than writing software for a computer. Technology being used to describe the hardware that goes into a computer, confusing it with software is like confusing the writing of a novel with the typewriter on which it was written. And so, when you take this phony technology out of the manufacturing that America produces, you'll find very little that is American hardware.

In addition, misnaming products, services and professions, makes the bubble that is created in America appear like it is anything but a bubble. For example, paying more for a pair of shoes today than you paid yesterday means that you paid for inflation. But you're not supposed to know it because you're told that what you bought yesterday was ordinary shoes, whereas today, you bought an ergonomic pair. But in reality, what you just bought is no more ergonomic than yesterday's pair. This signifies that the bubble is here, you're a part of it, and you don't even know it.

Whereas America used to lag behind the world in most of the manufacturing industries, but used to lead in the aerospace industry, it has lost that edge with the demise of Douglas Aircraft that was bought by Boeing, and now the demise of Boeing itself.

On the positive side, America leads the world in food production and agribusiness. It can also rely on construction and housing that cannot be exported. Those two industries make up about 40 percent of the country's manufacturing industries. It means that America can count on this industrial base to fully recover. But it needs to adopt the right policies and work with the rest of the world rather than confront it. Meanwhile what can be done in concrete terms to rectify the situation?

Well, here is an out-of-the-box idea. If the US government suspects, for example, that country X manipulates its currency, then everyone that owes money to the US government, such as buyers of weapons and large multinational corporations that owe taxes, will be required to pay all or a portion of what they owe Uncle Sam in the currency of country X. This will raise the value of that currency, thus offset the effect of its manipulation.

Try it. It might work.

To the spoiled Brat everything is existential

Two articles brought memories that go back almost fifteen years. One came under the title: “The new EU Push for Palestinian Statehood Is Dangerous for Israel,” written by Yoni Ben Menachem, and published on December 15, 2019 in the Jewish publication Algemeiner.

The other article came under the title: “Like Pepsi, Democrats Need To Reverse Course on Boycotting Israel,” and the subtitle: “A growing number of Democrats tolerate, even gladly support, the movement to boycott Israel. They justify it in the name of free speech and social justice, but it's economic warfare.” It was written by Melissa Langsam Braunstein and published three days earlier, on December 12, 2019 in The Federalist.

The title of the Yoni Ben Menachem article put the story in a nutshell: “Palestinian statehood is dangerous for Israel.” As to the title of the Melissa Braunstein article, it hints to how the Democratic Party in America may begin to alleviate the pressure on Israel. Stop boycotting Israel, says the writer.

These two articles brought memories of the day when the small hospital in the town where I live sent me to do a bypass operation in the big hospital of a nearby city. In fact, that hospital was setting aside one day every so often for patients that came from the nearby small towns. The hospital had several operating rooms, and the patients waited up to an hour for their turn to be wheeled into one of those rooms.

We waited, each in our bed, separated by portable walls, in row after row of makeshift cubicles. The rows themselves were separated by walkways that served as corridors. We were mostly people of advanced age, except for one. He was a child of about three or four years of age … and he cried most of the time. His mother held him in her arms, bounced him up and down, and sang him a lullaby. He would quiet down, and when she stopped bouncing him or singing, he knew how to get her going. He pretended to have a terrible cough, and before he started crying again, she would bounce him and sing to him.

At some point, the mother got tired and handed him to the nurse who started telling him he'll be okay because the doctor will not hurt him. But the child was not satisfied with that, and so he started coughing his terrible cough. He kept at it till the nurse got the message, and started bouncing him in her arms. That's when he stopped coughing … to start again when she stopped bouncing him.

You could tell this was one spoiled child that knew how to get what he wanted from his parents. And that's precisely the character I saw in the Jews who reminded me of him. The Jewish parody that imitates the child's cough has always been to cry out gimme this, gimme that and gimme the other things, or Israel will cease to exist because anything that upsets the status quo is an existential threat to Israel.

That's what Ben Menachem is saying with regard to the moves initiated by the European Union (EU) to recognize the Palestinian State. Bear in mind that the Foreign Minister of the EU reassured everyone that, “Such a move would not be anti-Israel … We must never lose sight of Israel's security conditions, as well as of justice and dignity for the Palestinian people.” Still, like a spoiled three-year old, the Jews continue to whine and cough out the discredited claim that, “An independent Palestinian state in the West Bank is a serious danger to Israel's security”.

By that, they mean a Palestinian state will pose an existential threat to Israel. Come to think of it, I never heard of a three-year old that said do not reward another kid with something he wants because if you do, I'll die. Only the Jews would say something like this … and they did.

As to Melissa Braunstein, she put a saying she agrees with between quotation marks without attributing the quote to someone. It doesn't matter. She agrees with it, and that's what's important to this discussion. So, speaking of the old Arab boycott of Israel, as distinct from the modern BDS movement, here is that quotation: “The boycott was part of the Arab League's policy to weaken and eventually destroy the Jewish state.”

She says she learned about that when in 1983, she was 5 years old and on a trip to Israel. Well, I was in Canada then, and was almost as old on that year as she is today. But the Arab boycott of Israel started long before that, and during the 7 years that I lived in Egypt, I never heard of anything which meant to convey the notion that the boycott intended to destroy Israel. Instead, the discussion was always about forcing Israel to stop its expansionist policy, which it did at the expense of the Palestinians.

And this happens to be the same spirit that's motivating the base as well as the leaders of the Democratic Party in America. Here is what Melissa Braunstein discovered: “The intra-party debate has shifted to leveraging American military assistance to shape Israeli policy.” As you can see, nothing in here hints at the destruction of Israel.

But if you give Braunstein and those like her a little bit of time, you'll see them regress to an infantile state and whine that America is about to let Israel be destroyed, without lifting a finger to rescue it.

Advocating checks and Balances, and not know it

It is amazing how well someone can be versed in the minutia of the subject about which he is writing and yet misses the proverbial 600-pound gorilla in the room.

This is what impresses you the most when reading the article that came under the title: “Turning Feudal Afghanistan Into Switzerland Was Always A Fool's Errand,” and the subtitle: “The real reason behind the Afghan misadventure is not just bureaucratic inertia, military-industrial culture, or myopic politicians. It is hyper-emotional idealism coupled with historical ignorance.” The article was written by Sumantra Maitra and published on December 13, 2019 in The Federalist.

Maitra begins his discussion by decrying the reality that the Americans spent so much in lives lost, in lives destroyed and a great deal of money, trying to accomplish the impossible in Afghanistan when the history of the British and Russian defeats in that same place, was staring them in the face, and warning that they too are on a fool's errand that's taking them to nowhere.

But the Americans ignored that warning, says Maitra, and the reason why they did, he went on to explain, is that everybody said or accepted lies and half-truths about the situation in Afghanistan. Lies being one of the root causes of the problem, Maitra asked the question: “How could government officials lie?” And he answered this way: “It is partially possible because of the sheer mediocrity of bureaucrats, led by fanatical ideologues”.

And this is when you, the reader, begin to wonder if Sumantra Maitra is telling the full story or if he too is missing something. Still, you continue reading the article to see if he'll redeem himself, or if not, what else he is saying. Unfortunately, you do not detect much in the form of redemption. But what he does is again decry the conformity of bureaucrats, as well as the civilians of both the liberal and conservative stripes, who are most vocal about intervening in far-away lands, motivated by altruistic impulses.

These do-gooders are the worst kind, he says. He explains that they are, “the product of a hollowed-out academic curricula, which preaches rather than teaches vacuous nonsense like the idea that everything is eventually going to get better, and that liberal-universalism is the end state of human social evolution”.

Maitra differs with that proposition and lays out his own point of view. It is this: “There is pure evil in this world that cannot be changed, or reasoned or argued with, but only exterminated or restrained.” Sounds familiar? If it rings the bell but you cannot identify the source, let me refresh your memory. Think Clifford D. May and his comical outfit that goes by the name: Foundation for Defense of Democracies. That's where this kind of ideas were baked and propagated for decades by the most fanatic characters you'll ever encounter.

These people never came up with a theory that is complete or coherent, and neither did Sumantra Maitra. He says America and the West should not engage in nation building. But because there is pure evil in the world, the West must exterminate it or at least restrain it. This means sending troops to the homeland of the evil ones and stay there as an occupier rather than nation builder. Well, isn't this what America did in Afghanistan, the adventure that Maitra has decried at the start of his discussion?

Well then, does this mean that Sumantra Maitra does not believe there is a workable solution by which to maintain Western Civilization alive indefinitely? It seems so, which is why he quoted Henry Kissinger saying the following: “As a historian, you have to be conscious of the fact that every civilization that has ever existed has ultimately collapsed,” to which Maitra has added this piece of wisdom, “and the least one can do is not to expedite that collapse by making terrible choices”.

This being the case, what are the terrible choices that must be avoided? And what are the good choices that must be adopted? Maitra does not answer any of these questions, but he ends his discussion as follows:

“With the returning great power rivalry, a coming equilibrium will again remind people of the old wisdom: that the forces of nature are beyond human control, that true justice and balance only exist between rough comparative equals, and that there's no greater morality than preferring order and preventing greater chaos”.

That is, Sumantra Maitra has parted company with the likes of Clifford May in that he now welcomes the rise of other powers such as China and India, if not to provide a kind of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) the way things were during the Cold War, but something new in international politics that may be modeled after the system of checks and balances described in the American Constitution.

If only he had thought of this at the start, he would have written a different article.

She said she'd go to Mother, he gave her the US

Here is what a handful of Jews know that the Americans don't know.

Having inherited much of his father's character, Donald J. Trump grew up hating everybody, except that he tolerated the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASP,) but only barely so. Of those whom he hated, Donald Trump reserved the deepest loathing for the African Americans and the Jews.

Later in life, Donald Trump's hormonal glands started to work overtime, and he developed a taste for the Eurasian look of the Eastern European females. He married one of them and sired children with her, among them a girl that grew up to be very close to her mother.

When marital problems arose in the Trump family, due to his adulterous promiscuity and his cheating on his wife, the children became distraught, especially the girl who developed an intense hatred for her father. And the more that she hated him, the closer she was drawn to her mother.

When she was old enough to marry, the girl got the idea of using her marriage as a dagger to plunge into her father's heart to avenge his abominable treatment of her mother. Knowing how much he hated the Jews, she decided she’ll marry a Jew.

Lucky for her, being the daughter of a prominent personality with a dubious reputation, the Jewish machine for identifying this kind of daughters and matching them with Jewish boys who themselves, have a dubious pedigree –– had its eyes on her. The machine picked the “right” Jewish boy for her, and organized the many coincidences that brought the two together by “chance,” of course. The stealthily organized matchmaking worked like a charm, and resulted in the girl converting to Judaism and marrying the Jewish boy.

Meanwhile, being the ambitious character that he is, Donald Trump succeeded in ascending to the highest office in the land: the presidency of the United States of America. Having a frosty relationship with his daughter, scared him to death, fearing that she would distance herself still further from him, and develop a visibly close relationship with her mother. He thought she might be inclined to hurt him, using her newly found fame (thanks to him) as a way to intensify her vendetta against him.

Priding himself on being a deal maker, Donald Trump made a deal with his daughter. He offered her and her Jewish husband high positions in his administration in return for not developing a visibly close relationship with her mother. On advice of the Jewish machine that was standing behind her and working full time in the exploitation of America to serve Israel, the girl accepted the deal.

This is when the opportunistic Jews found themselves deluged with a tsunami of opportunities. The first thing they did was work on the girl. They drove her into such a deep catatonic state, she would not question anything they asked her to extort from her father. And so, she repeatedly asked for favors and got them by mumbling words to the effect that she might go to her mother if he proves not to love her enough.

The trick worked every time on Donald Trump because he was beginning to grow shakier and less confident by the day. After a few repetitions of that kind, he fell into the mode of not arguing with her when she asked for something. As if in a psychotic state, he mindlessly and automatically agreed to every request she made.

While this was going on, the Jews drew a list of all that they wished America would do for them and for Israel, especially in the Middle East. They had Donald J. Trump deliver it to them like a butler under blackmail that's waiting on his Jewish master, endeavoring to please him to the fullest. After three years of this kind of nonsense, the Jews realized that there was very little to do in foreign affairs, except for the Iran question that neither they nor the Americans knew how it might end.

This was the reason why the Jews began to turn to domestic American affairs. They developed a creepy method by which to intrude into the American sociopolitical system, aiming to control every aspect of American life. Their immediate plan was and continues to be the revival and re-adaptation of the old formula that worked so well for their parents and grandparents.

Pursuing the dual track of whining about being shabbily treated in America, and seeking to “educate” the American public about Jewish sensitivities, the older generation of Jews had managed to take control of a good chunk of American life.

In time, America woke up to that demonic game, and began to extricate itself from the yoke of Jewish domination. This is why the current generation of Jews is whining about being shabbily treated in America, and seeking to take control of the country’s system of education, which it does under the pretext that the system needs fixing.

But the real intent of the Jews is to have innocent American children to work on, and prepare them to have them hand America to the Jews and to Israel in the not too distant future.

This is what Donald Trump has just delivered to his daughter, to her Jewish husband, and to Israel. He did it by signing an Executive Order about a fictitious need to combat anti-Semitism in the colleges.

They say gimme Alpha, intending to serve Omega

There has never been a problem on Planet Earth that could not be solved in a century or less time … except for one. It is the Jewish problem. Why is that? Because it is actually more of a riddle than it is a real problem. It is a riddle in the sense of a paradox that was never meant to be solved.

That riddle is the Jewish predicament whose solution has always proved to be the root cause of the problem. The goodwill people who gave it a shot, quickly realized that the more they tried to solve the problem, the more intractable it became. It is like a closed loop where the output is fed back to the input through a mechanism that re-amplifies the wrong message.

The more that these people tried to attenuate the input, the more the feedback frustrated their effort by amplifying the false message to an even higher level. Think of this setup as a version of Sisyphus that's trying in vain to push the stone to the top of the mountain only to be frustrated by the force of gravity.

You can see how that works when you read the article that came under the title: “Five things America can do to prevent the next anti-Semitic attack,” written by Jack Rosen, who is president of the American Jewish Congress, and published on December 11, 2019 in the New York Daily News.

So, here you have Jack Rosen, the feedback mechanism of false messages in flesh and blood. He says there has been an anti-Semitic attack recently in Jersey City, and he has a surefire plan that can be taken in five tangible steps to prevent this kind of attacks from happening ever again.

Of course, it would be a waste of time and energy to ask Jack Rosen where he was during the last four thousand years when there was a need for what he says is an infallible plan. In fact, it would be a useless effort to try talking to Rosen because he does not hear or appreciate this kind of talk. But if by some miracle he hears your words, he'll turn hostile on you anyway … so, what’s the use?

Look at the five steps that Rosen proposes, and you'll find them leading to one purpose only. It is to raise the profile of Jews so high they will do two things. First, the five steps will make the resentment of Jews among the general public even more intense. Second, the effect of those steps on the most disgruntled members of society will be to provide a large and more visible target to attack the Jews. Thus, instead of attenuating the level of society's anger of the kind shown in the Jersey incident, that anger will be amplified and fed back to the input of the loop. It will perpetuate the problem of the so-called antisemitism instead of vanquishing it.

Does Rosen know this? Of course, he does. So, why is he asking for it? He says he wants to change the negative message that the public is getting about the Jews. But the fact is that he is amplifying that negativity. So then, if he knows what's going on, and he still does the wrong thing, what's his real motive? The reality is that while Rosen wants the audience to believe he is trying to calm the situation right now; his long-term plan is to rekindle the situation and put it back to the way it was in a bygone era. That’s when the reputation of Jews as being omnipotent, preceded them everywhere they went.

This is how the Jews used to win the fights without having to get into public debates they knew they would lose. It happened because, conned into thinking that the Jews were invincible, the potential opponents left the field, thus forfeited the winnings to the Jews. And so, while pretending to serve a purpose as immediate as Alpha that would calm the situation, Jack Rosen is actually serving a purpose as distant as the Omega. He hopes this will lead to the much-fantasized Armageddon; the calamity that will bring the messiah to Earth as promised in the ancient Jewish legends.

Here is what Rosen's five steps say cumulatively:

“The presidential election should provide the candidates and other political figures with an opportunity to stand up for the Jewish people. I urge the president to address a joint session of Congress to address the issue of anti-Semitism. Congress should dedicate next National Prayer Breakfast to addressing anti-Semitism. Philanthropists should put their dollars toward initiatives that can make a difference. Law enforcement should have the capability to predict such threats. Private sector should support law enforcement efforts to track and preempt the dangers of hate”.

That is, Jack Rosen wants to mobilize the entirety of America’s elites –– aspirants to a higher office, government executives, legislators, law enforcement, private sector, public figures, philanthropists –– have them all stand up, and in unison, inform the plebeians below that the Jews are a chosen group. They will henceforth be considered a protected class that will enjoy exclusive rights no one else can have.

Should someone of the lower caste annoy any of the Jews deliberately or by ignorance of what constitutes Jewish sensibilities, they will be taken care of with a merciless iron hand even if they live to be ninety years of age or older. You have been warned and don't you ever forget it.

'I hate you because I am you and you are me'

The expression, “Self-loathing Jew” was often heard early on in America. It came about because the rabbis had a hard time convincing the Jews that saw what their leaders had brought onto them during the Second World War––to remain in the fold.

In fact, the “former” Jews would have nothing to do with Judaism under any circumstance even if they did not convert to another religion. This is when and why the expression, self-loathing Jew, came into vogue.

The renegade Jews did not advertise their dislike of Judaism; they simply distanced themselves from it and from its practices. But this behavior was enough for the “loyal” Jews to think of them as self-hating, and so characterize them in public. But when pushed too far by those who pretended to be righteous, the renegades finally came up with several responses of their own.

One such response had it that the so-called righteous Jews were themselves self-loathing, except that they expressed the hate they had for the self by pretending to hate those who were honest with themselves. It was as if the pretentious were saying to the truthful: I hate you because I am you and you are me.

From the looks of it, that condition seems to be ingrained so deeply in the Judeo-Yiddish culture, it continues to manifest itself in different ways to this day, depending on the circumstances. We can see an example of that in the article that came under the title: “America must stop helping China's regime grow richer and more oppressive,” written by Clifford D. May, and published on December 10, 2019 in The Washington Times.

Clifford May is expressing his hatred for China, accusing it of everything he sees that's wrong with America and Israel. It is as if May –– the former closet Marxist-Leninist who now hates being on the fascist side of the fence –– sees himself in the Chinese character as he describes it … and hating himself for that too.

If Clifford May is revealing anything that's new in this article, it is that he has fused in his mind, the two characters, America and Israel, into an Amerisral symbiotic conjugate. He sees this creature fomenting revolutions in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and sees it projecting its military might throughout the globe. It is living, breathing and feeding on corruption at the highest levels of government. And of course, it is repeating the 1930s fascist policies of expanding by annexing the land of neighbors.

Look at what Clifford May says China is doing, which in reality applies to America and/or Israel. Slightly tweaked to make the statements read as they should have been written, here is what they sound like: Mistreating the Muslims. Colonizing others. Organ harvesting of Palestinian youth. Suppressing people that struggle to improve their lot. Stealing hundreds of billions of dollars of property that belong to those who have little to begin with. Pursuing exploitative and neo-imperialist policies in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Building up military capabilities to always be superior to everyone else.

This said, there remains the question: What's Clifford May's point, anyway? His point is that, “China regards the United States as rival, a challenge to which the US must respond.” As to how the US must respond, Clifford May first warns that China is, “increasingly engaging in cyber-enabled economic warfare to debilitate America economically in order to cripple it militarily.”

Deliberately forgetting that it is the symbiotic conjugate Amerisrael, and not the Chinese who constantly repeat the most cowardly sentence ever uttered in any language: “all options are on the table,” and that it was the horrible symbiotic creature which used cyber-enabled warfare to debilitate Iran's economy and military –– Clifford May went on to speak morality, if you believe that someone can have this kind of gall.

He said that the moral thing for America to do, is to end the practice of intertwining its economy with that of China. He added that it may or may not be painless to do so, but it would be the right thing to do. And then, quoting someone he agrees with, Clifford May went on to make the following point: “This does not mean we can't do trade deals, but the deals should be bilateral”.

Do you know what this means, my friend? It means that Clifford May wants Amerisrael to adopt the economic version of the colonialist dictum: Divide and rule. When he says the deals should be bilateral, he means they should not be multilateral. The reason why these people want to avoid multilateral deals is that such deals protect the big and small economies equally.

But the Jews prefer to negotiate with someone that's so defenseless and standing alone, they would agree to any deal that's imposed on them. And so, having called the Chinese neocolonialists, Clifford May now tells America how to practice economic colonialism, which is the new form of colonialism, better known as neocolonialism.

Does Clifford May really hate the Chinese for that? Or does he hate himself, seeing his own image reflected in the way that he describes the Chinese? Only he knows the answer.

In any case, it is no wonder that Clifford May could not find a better way to end his article than to quote Lenin, his former idol. So maybe the reflection that May sees is not that of the Chinese, but that of his previous incarnation.