My Freedom Is Better Than Your Freedom

Finally the mystery has been resolved. For a long time, it was alleged that the Arabs do not like freedom, and the attitude of the Palestinians was given as proof that this view was the correct one. But in the minds of most people the allegation still remained a mystery because it was difficult to understand why someone would not like freedom. Then the wall separating Gaza from Egypt came down and the Palestinians poured into Egypt to "smell the fresh air of freedom," as they shouted in jubilation.

To the rest of us this was a eureka moment. We saw the truth come alive before our very eyes. And the truth was that the people of Palestine hated the American-Israeli brand of freedom because it shot bullets into their bodies and dropped bombs onto their homes, schools, hospitals and what have you.

But the Palestinians adored the Egyptian brand of freedom because it allowed them to walk hand in hand with their loved ones and to shop in the bazaars and the boutiques for what they needed. What a simple, honest and elegant expression of the truth this was, and what a delight it has been to see it unfold in living colors.

And so now that the World has been put right side up, we can ask the pertinent question: What on Earth is wrong with these Americans and Israelis who would distort something to such an extreme then use the concoction as a flimsy excuse to kill human beings the way that a school of piranhas attacks and kills everything which has the looks of life?

The answer is that a sick ideology has resurfaced and has taken much of the World by the throat. It started out by altering Israel's original purpose from being a place where Jews went to hide from the murderers of Europe into a hideout where they go to tarnish what is noble about the Arabs and about humanity. The ideology is actually an ancient one but it began to gather force once again when its operatives succeeded in infiltrating the American institutions and disfigured them from within.

The ideology is called Zionism. At its core is the belief that those who adhere to it become the chosen children of God, divine creatures in their own right entitled to receive heavenly privileges anywhere they choose to settle. Of course, nothing is more supremacist than this as neither the Nazis, the Fascists, the Communists or anyone else ever claimed a status for themselves as inflated as this.

But none of those ideologies ever pretended to be for freedom, much less claimed to militate for the freedom of others. So why did the Zionists and their American lackeys choose the freedom claim to implement their hidden agenda? The answer is that they needed a platform upon which to construct what they believe would be a conquering ideology. And what follows explains how things were supposed to work for them.

To rant: "My freedom is better than your freedom" is to rant the newest version of the Stone Age refrain adopted by Moses: "My God is better than your God," which served the ancient Hebrews well as they went from conquest to conquest. They believed they had allied themselves with a God that was stronger than everyone else's God, and their proof was that the Pharaoh of Egypt learned the lesson when the scepter of Moses devoured his snakes. This story more than any other has established the Moses rant as a solid platform upon which the ideology of conquests took flight.

But if that is the case, then why has the World not recognized this fact, install the Zionists who claim to be the descendants of the ancient Hebrews on the throne of the Gods and worship at their feet? Well, even though the snakes of the Pharaoh were devoured, the devil behind the snakes has not been eliminated. He is still out there working to frustrate God's plan to let the Zionists ascend to the throne of the Universe and rule the World from there.

And the truth about the devil is manifested by the fact that anti-Semitism still exists on Planet Earth. Defined as any effort made by an individual or a group, deliberately or inadvertently which would directly or indirectly expose the Zionist plan for World domination as a danger to Civilization, the charge of anti-Semitism has become the most potent tool in the hand of the Zionists to wage their war of conquest.

In short, it is now regarded as anti-Semitic to stand in the way of anyone who truthfully or falsely calls himself a Semite and who seeks to control your life. When you see him come to dominate you, it is your obligation to bow and consider yourself lucky that he chose you over everyone else.

But this warning has gone out: To all of you Zionists, be careful how you do things because if you tell someone I am a Zionist and I wish to control your life, you will be laughed off the planet. To be taken seriously, you must disguise yourself as a member of a religious or ethnic group and thus get the protection that is extended to those groups by the rules of political correctness. Consequently, you must say I am a Jew and I am here to control your life. If someone still resists your suggestion, holler anti-Semitism until your entrails are ripped out of your belly. This is when they will know how serious you are and let you have it your way.

The best example I can cite to this effect is a story that was told to me by a number of people, all of whom I trust. Apparently there is in Toronto a Jewish pawnshop owner with a WASPish name and appearance. He once infringed on someone's copyright during an advertising campaign he conducted in person. When the man received a notice from the lawyers of the aggrieved party, he went on television with a new advertisement revealing that he was Jewish. This settled the argument in a hurry.

To be this effective you need to adopt a word or an expression inside of which you pack all the power that the mind can fathom. You must not use the word God anymore because this fellow has been taken already. The fashion now is to use words like democracy, freedom, rule of law et cetera. These are the new divinities which are effective at getting the people to do what you want them to do.

But life is so complicated nowadays you will need a second set of words and expressions which will deter people from doing what you do not want them to do. To this effect, you may use words and expressions such as anti-Semitic or holocaust denier or whatever else you may devise which will work for you.

Through repeated usage, turn those divinities into the tools and weapons you will use to build a platform and construct a winning ideology. At the core of that ideology must hold the notion that you are above the rest of humanity and worthy to be in command of everybody's life. But be careful because for every claim you make, there will be someone who will debunk you and another who will challenge you with a claim of his own.

That movement has worked almost flawlessly for a few decades but is now losing its punch as demonstrated by the choice of freedom that the Palestinians have made. Now that they have shown the Arab freedom to be better than the Judeo-American freedom, the question becomes this: How will the Zionists react?

The expectation is that they will try to deter people from speaking their mind. They no longer fear or trust the power of the sword. Thanks to the military industrial complex of the Americans, they have the helicopter gunships, the jet bombers, the cluster and smart bombs that no one else has but they failed to bring the Palestinians or the Lebanese to their knees.

So now they fear something mightier than the sword and the bombs. They fear the pen, I mean every pen but especially the electronic pen because they have not yet figured a way to silence this goddamn pen which writes on the internet for the whole World to see and for history to record.

Lacking the imagination to come up with something original to counter the power of the pen, the Zionist leaders will concoct a variation on the old rant. It will most likely go something like this: "My right to control your life is greater than your right to free speech." But meeting a ferocious resistance at the level of the American judicial system which will reject the fantasy, the Zionists will work on the media, the Congress and the system of education.

In Canada, however, the Zionists will use the judicial and quasi-judicial systems to get what they cannot get through the free exchange of ideas. They will undoubtedly lose every argument they get into in the marketplace of ideas then do what they always do which is to run to the courts and the tribunals where they will seek relief for having lost the arguments.

In those courts and tribunals the Zionists will argue that their right to control the lives of the people is greater than the people's right to say no to them. Why? Because it is the fashion to be ruled by the Zionist lobby nowadays. Rather than get up to kick the Zionists in the rear and throw them out of the room, most judges and commissioners in Canada who hunger to be at the cutting edge of every fad, will remain on their own rear end and say amen to that outrage.

And this is because: "A fad a day keeps the evil away," is how the system of justice operates in Canada today.

Corruption In The Eye Of The Beholder

On January 17, 2008 the New York Times published a piece by Michael Slackman under the title: "Egypt's Problem and Its Challenge: Bread Corrupts."

A little further down, we encounter this sentence: "Egypt is a state where corruption is widely viewed as systemic…" Way below that we are shown how systemic this is: "Over the course of an hour [a] 14-year-old…managed four trips to the counter…to ensure a steady stream of bread for a nearby food vendor, who then resold it in sandwiches...Down the road…a 12-year-old…was selling…the same kind of bread…for more than double the price [and] there were no lines."

But before we get to that last point in the article, we meet this cautionary note: It is hard to assess the actual level of corruption…In a…survey that ranked 180 countries by their inhabitants’ “perception of corruption,” Egypt fell…

Putting it all together we construct this narrative: The Egyptians perceive themselves as being systemically corrupt because some enterprising kids, rather than sell lemonade at the street corner or scalp tickets at a sports event, labor to beat the system where a limited amount of subsidized bread is allowed per customer. The kids achieve their goal by making several trips to the counter then resell the bread at double the price.

And of course, the troubling question that jumps to mind must therefore be this: Have you ever seen something as corrupt as this at a supermarket in America, Canada or anywhere else in the World? Of course not. Therefore, those Egyptians have got it exactly right to perceive themselves as being systemically corrupt. Right on, good people of Egypt, keep up that good criticism of the self! You may yet prove to liberal democrats of the neocon stripe, after all.

But is that all there is to the New York Times' piece? Not really because there is a bit more about why the publication believes Egypt has a challenging problem with bread corruption. It is not at all clear if the folks in charge of the Grey Lady know what they are talking about but hidden in their verbiage lies the true, albeit incomplete story of the situation in Egypt. Better still, the story is told with numbers.

Before telling the readers that Egypt's population is nearly 80 million, there is this assertion: "…about 45 percent of the population survives on just $2 a day." A quick calculation yields 36 million as the number of people who live at that level of poverty.

But further down the article there is a quote from a World Bank report saying this: "In sum, almost 14 million individuals could not obtain their basic food and non-food needs." Thus, out of the 36 million, there are 14 million who find themselves below the minimum standard which means that 22 million reach at least the minimum standard, and do so on $2 a day.

Let us pry a little more into the numbers. The article mentions an inspector who makes $42 a month which is equal to 230 Egyptian pounds. This puts the exchange rate at 5.5 pounds per dollar. But the man says he needs 1000 pounds a month to feed his children and send them to school. This comes to $180 a month or $6 a day. He spoke of his children in the plural, and when you include the wife, this puts the size of the family at a minimum of 4 persons. Now then, when you divide 6 by 4, you get $1.5 a day per person which is what the inspector says he needs to feed his family. This is substantially less than the $2 dollars mentioned earlier, but we keep going.

Given that the man is not making 1000 pounds a month but 230 pounds as the article says, this is less than a quarter of what he says he needs. In fact, a short calculation reveals that his salary provides him with only 35 cents a day per person which is a far cry from the $1.5 or $2 mentioned above. What is going on?

Given that we are not big on math in this culture, we do our brains a big favor by setting aside this thing about the exchange rate where the confusion begins. It also means that we must set aside the World Bank report. There used to be a method called the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) by which to factor in a constant for each economy and work out a useful table of comparisons. But the method was turned into a pile of rubbish under the regime of Paul Wolfowitz, and this leaves us with the analysis of the raw data only to put things in perspective.

Let us begin with a reality check. The inspector in the article never said he makes 230 pounds a month; the reporter assumed this. The fact is that when Egyptians quote a salary, they mean per pay period, and they get paid twice a month. In reality then, the man makes 460 pounds a month which was the minimum salary in Egypt before it was raised by 15% a few weeks ago.

The man is also a government employee which means this is a base salary on top of which he receives bonuses and other perks. In total he may not reach the 1000 pounds per month he wishes to have but he comes close. In any case, this is beside the point because what is in point is what follows.

Except for the unemployed, this man and his family would be one of the poorest in Egypt living on the minimum salary of one parent. But if you take his monthly base salary alone and multiply it by 12 you get the yearly sum of 5520 pounds. One of the perks he is entitled to is buy a new apartment at 40 000 pounds with a mortgage payable over a 40 year period at an interest rate of 7% guaranteed by the government as long as he owns the mortgage. Now ask yourself: How many people in the World can buy a home at a price that is 7 times the yearly minimum salary with those guarantees?

It is clear that the New York Times missed out on the real story to peddle this instead: "Much of what ails Egypt seems to converge in the story of subsidized bread. It speaks to a state that is…unable or unwilling, to conquer corruption…Over all, the government spends more on subsidies, including gasoline, than it spends on health and education."

Nowhere in the article is there an indication that the publication attempted to find out if the government intends to keep or phase out the subsidies and why so. If it had, the real story would have come out, and a more intelligent article would have resulted.

The fact is that the government feels the local manufacturing industries have now become robust enough to withstand the phasing out of the fuel subsidies and has begun to do so. As to the bread subsidies, the ongoing effort is two pronged. First, given that the world price for wheat is now rising, increasingly more acreage is devoted to growing wheat locally. And wheat is what is subsidized, not the bread.

Second, while the debate is still ongoing as to the best way to look after the needs of the poor, a system of welfare which subsidizes the person is slowly being phased in to replace the existing system of subsidizing the basic food staples such as wheat, cooking oil and sugar.

Does this mean the government made a mistake delaying until now the phasing in of the new welfare system? There are those who agree with this proposition and those who do not. In their defense, the latter point out a fact which came up in the New York Times' article: "How do you take a broken system that somehow helps feed 80 million people and fix it without causing social disorder?"

The conclusion to draw from this is that the old system is working because it has been feeding this many people while generating enough leftover to send to food deficient countries like Israel. As to the canard of saying that the system is broken but then admit it is "somehow" working is something that the venerable but "somehow" idiotic publication will have to explain.

What does not need explaining but needs a historical refresh is this quote: "His teeth are brown and misshapen from decay… [He] ekes out a living, with a cigarette hanging from his lips…" It is not the first time that a North American reporter took the trouble to describe the teeth of someone he met in Egypt. I encountered this sort of reporting immediately after the 1967 war, and then once or twice more after that. This mentality is in line with things like loading the intro to a television Public Affairs program with images from the Arab World that are not very flattering.

Perhaps what the Arab media should do to send a message to their counterparts across the pond that this sort of infantile behavior must come to an end is to splice together a few images of the homeless in America, especially those returning from the war with a stress syndrome of some kind and who display a weird if not a painfully comical sort of behavior in public places. Using a montage like this as an intro to every Public Affairs program in the Arab World should drive the point home to American journalists that they are not as pretty as they think they are.

As to the New York Times' story, if the reporter had done a better job at reporting, I might have believed his talent extends beyond journalism to dentistry. And I may have accepted the assertion that the teeth of the man in the story were misshapen from decay. But the reporter came up with a story which, in my books, should not have made it even in a supermarket tabloid. Consequently, I reject the insinuation that heavy smoking would brown the teeth and misshape them by decay. In any case, I stopped smoking 20 years ago and I don't care much about this issue anymore.

What we should all care about is that journalists in North America concern themselves less with someone's brown teeth and more with their own brand of yellow journalism.

Behold This Act Of Supreme Corruption

Mirror, mirror on the wall who is the most corrupt of them all? History is best placed to answer this question but the trouble with history is that it speaks in the past tense. It is therefore difficult to know what history thinks of the present circumstances. But do not despair dear reader because history has given us clues as to how it functions. In its own eyes nothing is more corrupt than the attempt to falsify it and if you try that, you will be regarded as the most corrupt of them all. Consequently, we look for clues in that vein searching for ways to answer the above question and what follows is where we begin.

It was bound to happen that someone would leak a document telling what the government of Canada thinks of America and Israel. These two are torture countries says the document which is something that the World had known for a long time anyway. And so the World has welcomed Canada into the club of the knowing but then Canada said: wait a minute; something is happening that may tell we do not officially know what in reality we do know.

What happened was that America and Israel reminded Canada she is with them in the club of mutual admiration. Being in this club she cannot be in the club of the knowing because mutual admiration is the club of ignorance which is the antithesis of knowing. Therefore Canada must adhere to the rule of the self proclaimed ignoramuses and be a good girl or she would get kicked out of the club and be branded a corrupt entity.

The old timers in the club of the knowing have known for a long time that this kind of monkey business was going on among members of the mutual admiration gang. In fact, they saw cases of humongous corruption explode in America once or twice every decade. They saw the President of Israel admit to being a serial rapist and saw all the Prime Ministers there charged with corruption at some point during their tenure. And this is not to forget that most of those characters were at one time or another street terrorists who now practice torture as well as state terrorism which they do as a matter of routine because they have it in their DNA.

Also, the old timers saw how the corrupt leaders of the Third World were talked about with admiration and described as honest people in the corridors of power while the honest leaders were demonized and branded as corrupt because they would not play the game of monkey business as formulated by the club of the mutually admired.

As for the Canadian situation, we are in this country like a quantum of light to the rest of the World. This is not light in the sense of truth or enlightenment; far from it. Rather we are like a ray of light as it is seen by scientists. That is, in the same way that light is both particle and wave; we Canadians are both reality and fantasy at the same time. We are comfortable living with the fact that we are liars, hypocrites, lawbreakers, insensitive and arrogant, and we readily mix this reality with the fantasy that we are truthful, intellectually honest, law abiding, sensitive and humble. Examples follow that show how these two situations blend together.

On the international stage, let there be a real or perceived corruption in the way that the Olympic athletes are evaluated but as long as the corruption works for us, we accept it as being part of the game and as something that is normal in this vast and complex world. However, let the fortunes reverse and we lose, and you see Canada raise the flag of moral indignation to shout from the rooftops that the Olympics have gone to the dogs. Reform, reform we scream at the International Olympic Committee and we ask for a review of the scores.

Yet on the local stage, nothing surprises us when someone is caught committing the most outrageous act of corruption. The only time we express surprise is when someone says he or she is surprised that we are corrupt. In fact, we pride ourselves for the fact that we cannot be unsettled by what we do to each other however extreme that may be but are surprised by what others might do to us, we good natured Canadians.

When you say fantasy, you mean your preoccupation with the image that the World has of you. In the countries where the leaders have the moral fiber of steel, they lay down the law as clearly as they can, set the penalties for those who break it and enforce the law regardless of what the rest of the World thinks of them. An act of corruption there stands out like a drop of ink on a white page and there are plenty of such drops to see and to criticize but no one tries to conceal the facts.

By contrast, in those countries where the leaders have the moral fiber of jelly but fantasize they are giants of steel, they lay down the loopholes then work out some kind of a rule around them. The result is that nobody in such a society spends time reflecting on how to abide by the law but everyone runs around looking for ways to beat the rules. An act of corruption here looks like just another grain of sand lying on a vast beach where it is difficult to distinguish one grain from another.

To take an example, no one who is not an accountant knows what the tax code says in any given year but most people know what the loopholes are and what they, as taxpayers need to do to take advantage of them. Thus, people structure the year's work and their investment decisions in such a way as to wrap their arms around the loopholes and thus beat the rules. And when a scandal such as Enron explodes in these places, the lawyers, the accountants and the judges spend years sorting out what was legal from what was border line behavior from what was outright illegality; and never reach a consensus.

The same sort of useless and wasteful activities are triggered by most legislations in the places where they live the fantasy of adhering to a democratic system of governance yet slavishly follow the dictates of the lobbyists who have a way of conducting business which makes the autocrats of the bona fide dictatorships look like purring pussycats. If you want to see a master slave relationship don't go to Pakistan looking for the judges who would stand up to power and be dragged to jail; go to Washington and look at the congressional characters being dragged at the end of a leash into a cheap restaurant by their lobbyist trainers.

And so, under pressure from America and Israel, Canada has agreed to review the document which brands them as torture countries. It is expected that Canada will amend the said document to recant what she has said and thus falsify history to remain on good terms with her club mates. But whatever happens in this regard, one thing cannot be changed anymore than toothpaste can be pushed back into the tube, Canada's original testimony shall live forever.

In any case, history will not have been written or unwritten by this one revelation alone because torture in America and Israel were old news by the time that Canada had come around to speaking her mind. But what will go down in history as a result of this episode is the fact that the two countries pressured Canada to recant what she had witnessed.

The truly new element in all of this is that history now has a clear case of an attempt to falsify it. Not only did America and Israel try to fool their contemporaries, they tried to fool history as well and this is something that future historians will never forgive. Historians will regard the attempt as being the highest form of corruption one can commit, this being in line with the historical view that to bear false witness is the most cowardly crime one can ever commit.

Therefore, be advised mirror on the wall that the most corrupt of them all are the members of the club of mutual admiration; those self proclaimed ignoramuses who want to transform the World into their own image. Let them take a good look at themselves as you reflect their image back to them till they get sick of staring at it. Maybe then will they search for a prettier thing to look at and discover that it is the multitude of faces they have been trying to disfigure for such a long time.

The Hyena In The Hunter's Den

You get praise for speaking truth to power when you go to the lion's den and speak your mind there. You get scorn when you go to the hunter's den and badmouth the good lions from afar because this is when people see what a pathetic hyena you are.

In some places around the World people are risking their comfort, their careers even their lives to defy one form of authority or another. They do so by standing up to the powerful - whether these are lions or something else - to tell them the truth in their faces.

But something is happening that is undermining the nobility of such acts. This something is a cultural disease that was developed in the test tubes of the Zionist lobby with the intent to turn reality upside down and thus make the cowardly look courageous while diminishing the value of the genuine acts of courage.

The manifestation of this disease is often encountered in the public arena where some unsavory characters make their appearances. These are the people who pretend to speak in the name of the Arabs or the Muslims but in reality have no affinity with those communities. They are the talking hyenas who are raised by the Jewish lobby and given instruction in the basement of some synagogues where they learn to speak in the name of the Arabs and the Muslims in a demeaning way.

What turns such spectacles into a sick and dangerous farce are the operatives of the Jewish lobby who host the television shows where these hyenas appear. The hosts praise the courage of the guests who have come to denounce a tyranny they say is practiced half way around the World but say nothing about the Jewish tyranny that is practiced here at home. The latter is the tyranny which suppresses the authentic voices of the Arab and Muslim communities and replaces them with the charlatans they produce in their test tubes and their synagogues.

The Zionists know who to pick and develop into a charlatan because they study and catalogue those who hunger for something. They pick those who miss belonging somewhere having been excluded from belonging anywhere. They are the characters whose blind ambition made them climb on everyone's back and made everyone stand away from them. They are the ones who hunger to be recognized for the talent they don't possess having learned to snatch what they covet and not work to earn what they desire.

Unable to fulfill their dream of fame and fortune on their own these are the characters who accept the Zionist offer to go on radio and television and badmouth the Arabs or the Muslims for a break on the public stage and the dollars that go with that.

Impersonating the Arabs or the Muslims is not new to the Zionists; they have a history of committing this sort of fraud going back a long time. The first I became aware of it was a time when I watched the Phil Donahue show on television some three decades ago.

One day they had a number of Western women who knew Arab men or had a relationship with them; and there was one male guest on the stage dressed in a traditional Arab garb. The man did not speak a word throughout the show but got up in the middle of it, moved away a few feet and put on a comical skit. He crouched and bent over in a demeaning manner as if to mimic the posture of a Muslim at prayer. The women recognized the pantomime as fake and protested the staging of it but no one stopped the masquerade.

Another time when I lived in Montreal a woman began to appear on French television. She spoke disparagingly of the Arab countries, especially Egypt and had nothing but praise for Israel and everything Jewish. Every once in a while she would remind the audience that she was born n Alexandria, Egypt without elaborating further as to her true identity.

These were the Nineteen Nineties when southern Lebanon was still occupied by Israel following a war that had raged there a few years before. A group of Lebanese called Phalangists had aligned themselves with the Jewish state against their own countrymen, and that woman had a name which gave her away as a Phalangist even though she was born in Egypt.

It is common in many parts of the World to be born in one country yet maintain the identity of one's parents who would be from another country. What is not common is to try and have it both ways as did that woman. She expounded the Phalangist philosophy but wanted the audience to believe she spoke as an Egyptian to give force to her anti-Arab remarks and her praise of Israel. She achieved that goal by telling the audience she was born in Alexandria but without saying she considered herself Egyptian which she did not.

I saw in this work the handicraft of the Jewish lobby and so I called someone inside the Montreal media establishment to tell them what I know. I suggested that the woman be told to clarify whether she considered herself to be Egyptian or Phalangist. I said that failing this, the host of the show where she was to appear next should ask her a direct question and insist that she answers.

The woman was confronted with this information in private and given a few options to choose from. She chose never again to appear on television or anywhere in the hunter's den and never again to demean the good lions who nurtured her as she grew up in Alexandria where she was fed, clothed and taught every thing she ever learned until she fell into the Zionist test tube where she learned to be a media hyena.

What facilitated my conference with the media establishment was a show on the French division of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. If my memory serves me correctly the show was called: "La Course Au Monde" meaning the race around the World. It was either running at the time or was being planned for. In that show students of Fine Arts were given money and film equipment. Each went into a different country where they searched for a representative story and did a report on it. The student that came up with the best report was hired by the Corporation.

I missed the show but I reviewed the tapes of a number of episodes later on. One episode told to me why I was cordially received during the conference I held with the media establishment. In that episode, the student went to Egypt to do a representative story. Get this now, he took an elevator inside the pyramid and crashed into the basement where he was greeted by the Israeli secret service who behaved like they own the place. After making some insulting remarks about Egypt the student ended the report by saying in French: "The Pyramids? My ass is full of them!"

During my discussion with the media establishment I was given the impression in a very deliberate way that there was a great deal of discontent brewing at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation where a murderous kind of pressure was put on everyone to turn the network into an anti-Arab hate generating machine. And first on the list to be hated was Egypt.

I had no trouble understanding this because I saw the result of something like it happening in the English media of Canada and the US. One piece which will never be erased from my memory was that of John Ritter in a comedy sketch showing bugs rolling balls of excrement with their hind legs. Ritter explained that this is how the pyramids of Egypt were built, and the audience was expected to laugh. One wonders if the excrement those bugs were rolling had come from the French student's ass.

I turned to my Jewish friends to find out why those at the lobby were this obsessed with badmouthing Egypt. Money, they said. Egypt which up to then had cared only about cultural tourism was beginning to develop recreational, ecological and other forms of tourism, and the effort was attracting people to the country in numbers never seen before. Egypt was learning how to make more money from tourism and was getting better at it.

All the while tourism was going through a difficult period in Israel because of the deteriorating security situation there. Hence the Israeli jealously which sent out the word to the operatives around the World, including some of my Jewish friends, instructing them to attack the symbols of Egyptian tourism. And that included the pyramids.

The result was the portrayal of the pyramids as nothing more than a piece of you know what. Obviously the managers operating the test tubes in the basement of synagogues were getting desperate and they spoke in the language they know best, that of the toilet bowl. They are still at it today trying to make us believe that the pyramids are not worth being cited as a wonder of the ancient World. Ever wondered why some people end up in the oven?

This then is the new face of Western Civilization, the face of the new democracy. This is what millions of people died in several wars to accomplish. This is what the Zionists have made of the victories scored by the allied forces in Asia, Europe and North Africa. Working with the test tubes of social experiments, the Zionists have created a culture worthy of the toilet bowl and have placed it on the pedestal where Western Civilization used to stand tall and proud. Look at it now and weep.

The Dershowitz Gift Keeps On Giving

On January 11, 2008 Alan Dershowitz wrote a piece under the title: The Oxford Union's Destructive "Debate" in which he reminds the readers that in October of 2007 he wrote an obituary for the Oxford Union because "its debates have become more one-sided, more absurd, and more trivial than most bar room brawls."

He then explains what, in his view, was wrong with that debate: "The problem was with the debaters selected by the Oxford Union to defend the two-state solution, which is synonymous with Israel’s right to exist."

He goes on to explain what he regards as being wrong with another debate proposed to take place later this month: "Now the Oxford Union has gone even further. It has scheduled a debate on January 24 on whether Israel has the right to exist. Both speakers are virulent Israel-haters…"

And he ends the January 11 piece like this: "But at the Oxford Union, the only debate permitted is over the means used to end Israel's existence…This is not a public debate. It is public execution."

Whether we accept or reject his bar room brawl or his public execution analogies, Alan Dershowitz is doing the debate a favor because he is unknowingly advancing it in the right direction albeit while he kicks and screams.

In reality, for more than 40 years now there has been no honest debate in the Anglo World about the Middle East because the Arabs who could articulate their side of the story were blacklisted and banned from having access to the public stage, yours truly included.

To invite an Arab who can tell his own story was an act of demonstrable anti-Semitism punishable by including the name of the offending party into the same blacklist. The result was that Jews were invited to tell their side of the story and tell what they fantasized to be the Arab side while the real Arab side was ridiculed and then labeled the "so-called Arab side" and was set aside for being too irrelevant to what the public ought to know.

What Dershowitz is now doing is describe in a roundabout way the enormity of the damage that his Jewish lobby has inflicted over the years on the Anglo public that wanted to hear the two sides of the story and on the Arab commentators who wanted to tell their side of the story. Not knowing what he is doing, he is now presenting the Arab side but with two modifications. In the first place he speaks of Israel's rights where he should be speaking of Palestine's rights. In the second place he fantastically missed out on the scale of the thing.

To visualize this last point, imagine a scale designed to weigh the two sides of the situation. On one side you have a student debating society that schedules a debate and is forced to cancel because of pressure from the Jewish lobby headed by none other than Dershowitz himself. The debating society then makes another attempt and Dershowitz goes after it again calling its activities a public execution of Israel.

On the other side of the scale you have thousands upon thousands of radio, television and print media propagating the Judeo-Israeli story through millions upon millions of reports and opinion pieces 24/7 for nearly 15000 days; not to forget the entertainment vehicles, the reference publications, the symposiums, the debating societies and what have you - all of which articulated the Judeo-Israeli side at the exclusion of the Christian Arabs, the Palestinians and the Muslims.

Now then, if one failed attempt and one attempt that has not yet materialized are perceived to be a public execution of Israel by Dershowitz, what does he think of what the Palestinians were made to endure as a result of his lobby's activities during all these years?

Dershowitz does not have to answer this question because of two reasons. First, if he tries consciously to answer it, he will lie again and the World has had a bellyful of that. Second, he has already answered the question in the most honest manner he possibly can, not knowing what he is doing.

The man has, in effect, said that to debate a two sided story you must have two opposite sides to debate it. Whether or not he is correct in accusing the Oxford Union of making poor choices in their selection of the debaters is something for others to decide as I am not familiar with the stand taken by everyone involved.

What I know is what I and others like me were put through over the past 40 years until the internet came along and gave me the opportunity to express myself in my own words without having to endure the spectacle of a Jew like Dershowitz looking into the camera and say: "I tell you what the Arabs think with regard to this question…"

At times the Universe unfolds in a way that imposes strange coincidences on the march of history making us wonder if these are truly coincidences or the inevitable consequence of what has been cooking for decades. To wit, several incidences are currently developing in Canada in the realm of freedom of speech. Two Jews have been asked to appear before Human Rights Commissions with regard to something they wrote or published. And a Native Chief who was convicted of promoting hatred against Jews but then saw the conviction reversed saw the reversal of his conviction upheld a second time this past week.

With regard to the last case, the mainstream media did not report the upholding of the reversal and then comment that the Crown had the option to appeal the decision one more time to a higher court. No, that's not how the news was presented. Instead, minutes after the judgment was handed down, the media spoke as if in the name of the Crown and asserted that the case was going to be appealed. Only after they had done this did the media mention that the reversal was upheld a second time.

But in reality the Crown had not said anything yet about whether or not it will appeal the second reversal. The assertion that it did was the media's way to clamor that the Crown take the case to the Supreme Court. Yes folks, in this day and age, to criminally fake the news is the media's way to loudly express the wish that something happen the way they fantasize it to be. No, this is not in an Orwellian horror novel, folks; it is an existing Jewish dictatorship called North America in which we all live and suffer.

As for the two Jews whose cases are before the Human Rights Commissions, some of the media which pretend to be unbiased are calling this a persecution. In one case, the totally abominable host of the show went on television night after night to do the proverbial beating of the breast, tearing of the hair, banging of the head against the wall and pulling of the entrails out of his belly while screaming: bloody murder, look what they are doing to those poor Jews!

Folks out there, look at the concept of justice as it is understood and practiced by these people. To call on the Crown to go further with the case of the Native Chief whose conviction was thrown out of court twice already in a case that has gone on for nearly a decade is not persecution in their eyes. But to call on a Jew once to explain why he wrote or published something the way he did is persecution worth turning the World upside down over.

I can say from these examples and from my own experience that there is nothing more disgusting in all of creation than this brand of dictatorship which is made worse by the fact that it is disguised as a democracy. It is pure filth through and through and it has no rival on Earth as to the stink it gives off and the virulent effect it has on its victims.

It is worth remembering that this is justice as described in the Talmud; it is what the Zionist lobby wants to impose on mankind. Compare it with the time when there was a suggestion to give Muslims the choice of being adjudicated in family matters under the civil law of the land or the religious law known as Shariah. Even though Jews could make this same choice with regard to their family laws, the lobby and some Jewish organizations opposed the principle of equal treatment for the Muslims.

All the while, that same lobby and those same organizations have crept the Talmudic law into our daily lives to the point where the Talmud has now become the de facto law of the land and where no one is protected from its devastating effects because it is not even acknowledged that we are being ruled by this stone age concept of justice.

In any case, whatever Dershowitz thinks he is doing in pushing forward his thoughtless views, he is helping to advance the debate with a force I could never have mustered without his input. Having amassed the amount of power that he did as he and the lobby have operated without opposition over the decades, they are now being crushed by the mass of that power weighing on their shoulders. And the debris that is flying off in every direction has become the fodder that is feeding my furnace.

The man and the lobby have reached the point where they find themselves compelled to deny they have the power to harm someone when in the past they used to brag about the power they had to raise someone meek to the level of a star or sink the mighty with a single op-ed article carried by one or two publications. Things are changing indeed.

Dershowitz ends his January 11 piece by saying that what the Oxford Union is trying to do is conduct a public execution of Israel. This says nothing about the Oxford Union but it says that Dershowitz is admitting what he and the lobby were trying to do over the past 40 years was to publicly execute Palestine, the Arabs and individuals like me who wanted to speak for themselves. But we all survived the onslaught of the Zionist lobby and this feat can only be attributed to the fact that our case was strong enough to deserve staying alive.

The gist of the Dershowitz argument is that he wants equity, fairness and justice for Israel. So do we. Consequently, he and his lobby must now let things unfold without interference so that we get to see how long Israel, himself and the lobby can hang on under circumstances that are but a small sample of what we were made to endure.

A Symbiont In The Belly Of America

You do not need the imagination of a science fiction writer to see that America has been piloted by what may be called the Jewish Symbiont in its belly for some time now. Not too many people disagree with this premise but some question as to whether or not this is a good thing for the country.

A handful of evangelical leaders have argued it is good for America to be piloted by the Jewish Symbiont and they went through history as they understand it to show that whenever Jews took control of a country, that country improved substantially. But other people looked at the same history and they reached the opposite conclusion.

In my view these interpretations of history are neither here nor there. In fact, sometime ago I developed a method by which to look at history that is different from the convention. Instead of looking at the past to explain the present or predict the future, I look at the present and through this prism attempt to explain the past. Only then do I venture to speculate about the future which I do with caution as I throw in a few caveats.

However, my method does not prevent me from drawing analogies between the past and the present. I still do that but I find my method to be more reliable in the final analysis. The added reliability comes from the fact that the method begins with the premise we all understand the present in which we live more than the past which we can only imagine. Therefore, looking at things from this perspective makes our analysis of any situation a more reliable exercise. The following illustrates how all this works.

Two notable events happened the day that George W. Bush flew into Israel to boost the peace talks and forge a legacy for himself that his descendants will not be ashamed to inherit. Looking at these events we can learn a great deal about the Jewish Symbiont in America's belly and from there attempt to explain the past and perhaps draw some useful conclusions that may help us safely navigate into the future.

The first event happened at the Tel Aviv airport less than a week ago during the welcoming ceremony. Shimon Perez, the President of Israel basically said this: Welcome President Bush, how are you. By the way, we took your advice about Iran and have become suspicious of that country which we were not before you gave us the good advice that opened our eyes.

The second event happened at a news conference later in the day. This time Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister of Israel said that Gaza was part of the package which meant it will be nearly impossible to forge a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority unless Gaza was brought under control.

What is so characteristic about these two events is that each in its own way points to the rapist mentality of the Symbiont. The first is a well known trick called reverse psychology. Instead of telling Bush he ought to be suspicious of Iran, Perez tells Bush this is your idea and we have come around to believing in it. So now Bush cannot disown the idea and he is psyched into loving it if he had not already done so from previous presentations. What Perez did, in effect, was rape the brain of his intellectual inferior in the most subtle and most effective way it can be done.

To understand the second event we must digress and go back in history to a time when a revolutionary group calling itself the Symbionese Liberation Army kidnapped the heiress to a media empire and made her join the group. The method they used to persuade the heiress to join them "voluntarily" was to have the female members of the group hold the girl down while the male members proceeded to rape her.

Apparently this is a practice commonly used by pimps to persuade ordinary, innocent, wholesome girls to become professional prostitutes in their employ. At the time of the kidnapped heiress, some psychologists called the practice the physical manifestation of brainwash; I called it the simulation of brain rape.

What Olmert did, in effect, was to ask Bush, the Palestinian Authority and the World to hold down the million and a quarter people who live in Gaza while he and his army proceed to rape them. Olmert's presentation went something like this:

OLMERT: Why don't you Christians and Muslims of the World be Christian enough and forgive us Jews for all the horror that we have inflicted on the Palestinian people. Let us turn the page, start afresh and go from there. It will be a new day for the World, for the Palestinians and for us.

WORLD: Good idea, Prime Minister. So why don't you also be Christian enough and forgive whatever it is that you think the Hamas people did in Gaza. Turn the page along with us and with them, start afresh and let us all go forward from here. Hamas have respected every truce they agreed to adhere to until you reneged on it and bombed the hell out of their people but they are willing to declare another truce if you will agree to respect it. If you do, this will be a new day for you as it will be for them and for the rest of us who frankly need a rest from this ongoing tragedy.

OLMERT: Oh no … no, no, no, no. We are Jews and we can never be Christian enough to forgive anything. We never forgave and we shall not forgive now or in a thousand years. To do so will violate the most basic tenets of our religion. It will be as if we rejected our Jewishness. Therefore, we shall continue to send helicopters into Gaza and bomb the people in there even if they do not retaliate which is immaterial to us since they have little to retaliate with. So you do us a favor, World, and you hold them people down as we engage in the rape of Gaza and everyone in it because we are Jews and this is what we enjoy doing.

Coming up with a last minute demand that the other party will find difficult or impossible to meet is so common to these characters it is like a ritual they follow religiously. The surprise they inflict on their would-be partners when they pull this stunt can be so stinging at times, it makes good natured people like yourself throw their hands up in the air and scream: What am I doing here playing a game of fart-as-fart-can with these skunks who are as devoid of shame as their supply of spray is unlimited!

You shake your head, you turn philosophical and ask yourself: What can this tell me about the past? You revise history in your head and come to the conclusion that the pogroms and the holocausts of the past were not really due to a human race that is so evil it wakes up in the morning every once in a while and decides to go after the Jews.

We were, in fact, made to believe by the characters who appoint themselves leaders of the Jews that there is something fundamentally flawed about the human race in that anti-Semitism is wired into our genes. We were repeatedly told that Jews being the smartest and sweetest thing on the planet, we are jealous of them because we realize they are the chosen children of God and so we delight in sending them back to God by exterminating them here on earth.

No, this is not it, you conclude in your mind. Things are not even so complicated as to merit the apportioning of blame between Jews and gentiles. No, things are much simpler than that. They are this: The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the self-appointed Jewish leaders who will do anything and sacrifice everything except their own hide to further their personal interests.

By design or by ignorance those leaders trigger the chain of events that lead to the tragedies. And if such tragedies must never again be allowed to happen, that type of leaders must never again be allowed to rise and take control.

And the way to make certain that this will be the case, eternal vigilance with regard to the activities of those who claim to speak in the name of the Jews must become everyone's concern. To take this step is important because when it comes to persistence there is no one more persistent than those characters and we must all be there breathing down their necks and scrutinizing everything they do.

The motto from here on must be that when the Symbiont stirs in the belly, America must run to eviscerate the thing in the same way that it would eviscerate an Afghan enemy combatant.

As for Palestine, America is left with only one option if she wants to avoid a tragedy in the Middle East. Order Israel to get out of Palestine right now or expect to be bombed by the air forces of the NATO Alliance at the invitation of the UN Security Council.

Moral Clarity And The Monodialogue

With history on his mind President George W. Bush of the United States will soon head to the Middle East. No doubt he will carry with him a vision for carving a place for himself in history that is in league with the likes of Winston Churchill. He can do it if he maintains the right frame of mind when he meets with those in Israel who have thus far made it more likely he will secure a place that is in league with the likes of Baby Doc and Idi Amin.

This is because there came a time when "moral clarity" was a big phrase in the American discourse as the discourse was conducted by the Zionists alone without opposition from someone else. It was possible for something like this to happen because hardly a day went by prior to that time without a number of Zionist voices rising to condemn someone out there or to call on someone here to do it for them.

The Zionists asked for this service as they spent their own time praising everything Jewish and all things Israeli. And the reason they gave for wanting to condemn all those others was that if you let people get away with doing the wrong thing they will keep doing it and thus turn the world into a horrible place.

As it happened this was what everybody else was saying and it was the very reason for which the people wanted to condemn the Jewish bad behavior they encountered once in a while and condemn the Israeli evil they witnessed all the time. Oh no, said those Zionist voices, do not condemn the Jews or the state of Israel under any circumstance because if you do, you will be called anti-Semitic whatever the circumstance.

Thus the Zionists kept doing the wrong things and they were the ones who turned the World into a horrible place. Faced with nonsense that is this shameless the World wanted to ask a series of questions and follow up with more questions to clarify a few things. This was done, in fact, but not in the manner that you would expect it to be done.

The trouble was that the discussions were carried out in the absence of a real dialogue because the questioner and the responder represented not two different points of view but one and the same Jewish view. In this format, moral clarity which was supposed to mean taking a stand against terrorism became the immorality of genocide which was encouraged, protected, nurtured and paid for by the Americans.

American money and weapons as well as political support at the UN and elsewhere were lavished on Israel in the belief that terrorism conducted with American weapons was no terror at all but was something that the victims of the horror awaited and prayed for in places like Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon.

We can see shameful examples of such discussions in the North American media when over several decades only the Jews were invited to speak on both sides of the issues concerning the Middle East. This happened while the Arabs who were supposed to represent one of the sides were blacklisted and banned from having access to the public stage.

Those discussions were a strange sort of incestuous give and take done with one side and itself. A new word was coined to express the phenomenon. That word was the monodialogue which must now be given a place in our vocabulary and defined as one party representing both sides of the same issue during one and the same discussion.

The difference between the dialectic and the monodialogue is that in the dialectic, one party may wrestle in private or in public with the opposite poles of the same issue in order to bring to light all the parts of the issue whereas in the monodialogue the same party plays the devil's advocate and the responder for reasons that are not always pure.

The Jewish lobby made use of the monodialogue to identify the possible criticisms which may be leveled against their stand. This done, they fabricated the most watertight lie they could think of to use against a possible opposition if and when it came to the fore. And this is when the lie was deployed forcefully and in a surprising manner so as to catch the opposition unprepared and to leave it speechless.

In reality the monodialogue is not a new invention. It has roots that go back to antiquity but its modern version can be traced to an era when the Talmud was first assembled two centuries after Christ. The monodialogue was then conducted in total secrecy by a group of people who had come together to destroy Judaism and replace it with Rabbinical Judaism which served the purpose they meant for it.

The rabbis invented Rabbinical Judaism, developed its tenets and compiled these in a book they called the Talmud. The idea behind the exercise was to have a living document much the same way that the constitution of a country is put together. The original purpose was to allow the Talmud to morph and to mutate, to adapt to every taste thus seduce the many and replenish the Jewish ranks with new converts.

The rabbis failed in that department but the Talmud has survived to this day. It is a book that is full of lessons which tell the Jewish leaders how to continually change the spin on current and past events to suit every taste at every moment. The idea is to expunge what is no longer acceptable and to re-explain what has been explained without changing the fundamental principles that should ultimately lead to the realization of their agenda.

At the beginning, the agenda was the creation a nation that will take in and protect the Israelites, a people over whom the leaders wanted to rule like the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt. The dream was later enlarged to encompass the whole world, something that turned the Talmud into a constitution to bring humanity under one rule; that of the self declared Jewish Pharaohs.

Two themes in the form of command emerge from the reading of the Talmud. Theme one tells the Talmudic leaders to always strive to have it both ways. To this end they must confuse their interlocutor by asking a trick question; something in the form of the false choice: “Will it be God or Caesar?” Theme two directs them to invent something like the monodialogue, a trick by which two partners pretend to tackle both sides of an issue and thus leave no room for an authentic opposition to take up the other side. In this way, heads the Jewish side wins and tails the non-existent side loses.

This is what President Bush will be walking into as he visits Israel. He will be made to believe he is participating in a dialogue when in reality he will be lectured to and then turned into a bullhorn that will spew the bull to the World as he was made to do when he hired the Zionist speechwriting riffraffs who put words in his mouth and made the World laugh at him.

What the President needs to do instead is to realize that the monodialogue is now dead. Therefore the time has come to see the issues from the Arab and Palestinian points of view. Moral clarity now dictates that Israel be told in public: You can no longer use America's good name and her weapon systems to commit the crimes against humanity you have been committing for decades. You do that one more time and America will disarm you the only way that America knows how to disarm a rogue nation. This will be the carpet bombing of your cities, something to shock and awe your population.

It will be fitting for the President to deliver a speech containing these ideas from the balcony of the King David Hotel which was blown up once by the Jewish terrorists who ushered in the age of terrorism in the Middle East and later invented the concept of mud clarity but called it moral clarity.

If the President can muster the intestinal fortitude (guts) to do that, he will go down in history as the best leader humanity ever had. Rabbinical Judaism has been the plague of mankind for 18 centuries and to put an end to it with one speech will make him the savior of mankind. And this will mean a place that is one or more notches above Winston Churchill.

Educating Dershowitz, Harvard And Israel

On January 3, 2008, Alan Dershowitz wrote an article carried by a number of publications including the Huffington Post under the title: Targeted Killing Is Working, So Why Is The Press Not Reporting It?" While this is not exactly a model of intellectual integrity or brilliance, it is an attempt at getting there which brings me to volunteer a helping hand.

Stung by criticism over the casualties that Israel has inflicted on the civilians of Lebanon especially around the Beirut area where there were no combatants during the last war, Dershowitz spoke in the name of Israel and said in effect: Forget about what we did in Lebanon; look at what we did in Palestine before that war. You will find that we did not butcher as many civilians as we used to, therefore feel free to pat us on the back and blow us your kisses.

Well, he did not exactly ask for kisses but here is what he said: "This is a story that should be widely reported and carefully analyzed. Silence in the face of this improvement is misleading, since it leads many to believe that there have been no improvements since the dark days of the Intifada. Misleading by silence is as grievous a journalistic sin as misleading by mistake. The time has come to correct this sin and set the record straight."

Before we go further with this, we must remind ourselves of what has come to be known as the Alan Dershowitz Doctrine. This is an idea first enunciated by the man to the effect that you cannot criticize Israel for doing something that someone else has done before. It was the response that Dershowitz had given to criticism leveled against Israel more than a generation before the Intifada to the effect that the Israeli army was employing Nazi-like tactics to fight Palestinian freedom fighters who up to that time had done nothing more than throw the occasional stone at Israeli tanks engaged in the demolition of Palestinian homes.

This doctrine has now mutated, mushroomed, changed faces and deployed to justify everything that Israel does in the Middle East and everything that the Jewish lobby does everywhere else, especially here in North America. For example, to deprive an American citizen of his or her constitutional right to free speech, the Jewish lobby would say: "Look what they are doing in Saudi Arabia," or some other place for that matter.

And the lobby does not even bother to show what they are doing out there, it only insinuates that something similar to curtailing free speech is happening somewhere else then proceeds to trample on the First Amendment of the American Constitution. Boiled down to its essence the Dershowitz doctrine says that what is good for every goose out there is good for the Jewish gander down here.

It is therefore not surprising to see that a variation on this mentality is manifested in the Dershowitz article. When he responds to criticism leveled against Israel for the war in Lebanon with what he claims is proof of Israel's humanity towards the Palestinians, Dershowitz says in effect: Accept the atrocities we committed against the Lebanese because previous to that we did better in Palestine; so go ahead and blow us your proverbial kisses.

My response to this is that the criticism concerning the war in Lebanon still stands and if Dershowitz wants to take up that subject he is welcome to do so. What I reject off hand is the attempt to whitewash Israel's image with regard to Palestine then use the bathwater to smother the crimes committed in Lebanon.

To agree to this diabolic scheme is to give Israel the green light to continue butchering her civilian neighbors and agree to ignore the crimes that she will want to commit in the future. In a World like this, Israel will no longer need the American veto at the Security Council of the United Nations but nobody wants to see the UN sink that low. The World has already said let America wallow in this hellhole by herself and they all washed their hands from this enterprise.

Now, what about Palestine? What Dershowitz seems to have difficulty grasping is that there is a difference between a war fought among two sovereign nations such as Israel and Lebanon and a war launched by a sovereign nation against a people under occupation such as Israel butchering the Palestinians. The first is called a war and the atrocities committed there are called war crimes. The second is called a one sided assault by an army against a civilian population that has no army to defend it or the means to defend itself and the atrocities committed there are called genocide.

In practical terms both Lebanon and Palestine compare poorly when measured against the military strength of Israel. However, Lebanon is still a sovereign nation and as such has options and recourses that the Palestinians do not have. The country can, for example, call on friends, on allies or the UN to help out. If worse comes to worse the country can surrender and thus invoke the protection extended to a defeated army under international conventions.

This is not what a people under occupation can do. The fight of these people is a fight to the death; their situation is literally an existential one. When Dershowitz projects comfort as he speaks of Lebanon and Palestine interchangeably, he signals that he would feel comfortable interchanging the activities of the Israelis and those of the Nazis who continued to butcher the civilian population after occupying a country.

When in his article he goes through the process of detailing how Israel went from killing the Palestinians in the ratio of one civilian for every one combatant to the ratio of one civilian for every 30 combatants, he says that Israel went through a long history of learning on the job how to butcher civilians and get away with it. But what he does not realize is that when he says Israel got 30 times better at the end of the process he is admitting that Israel was 30 times worse at the beginning of the process.

And this is where a low caliber intellect hangs himself because what is missing from his discourse is the recognition that while Israel was learning on the job, the Palestinian children were learning by osmosis as they watched helplessly while their folks were being butchered. As toddlers, these children were made to serve their apprenticeship in the Jewish slaughterhouses that slaughtered their families. They were made to watch as they grew up to become young boys and girls, then teenagers, then young men and women and finally adults. This horror went on for three long generations and is going on today.

Having no sovereign government to protect them, the children grew up to rely on themselves and on each other for protection. Having no source to learn from but the activities of the forces of occupation they learned how to destroy not to build. But having no tanks or helicopters with which to retaliate against the Israelis, they took the only alternatives available to them. It should therefore not come as a surprise that suicide bombing has replaced the throwing of stones; it was the inevitable outcome of Israel learning on the job how to butcher human beings.

And contrary to the propaganda employed under the guise of combating the so-called anti-Semitism, the evil is not the Christianity or the Islam of mankind; the evil is the Judaism of the Israelis and the Zionists who are inflicting on humanity the new plagues and the old horrors which again are reaching biblical proportions. Watch out, World because the recidivist that has raped humanity before is on the prowl again but this time he wants you to believe that the problem is with you and not with him.

Still, Dershowitz makes fantastic claims throughout the article with sayings like: "No army in history has ever had a better ratio of combatants to civilians killed in a comparable setting. Israel’s ratio is far better than that of the United States, Great Britain, Russia …"

I shall not ask the man to explain what he means by comparable setting or to give detail of operations conducted by the United States, Great Britain or Russia to allow the making of a comparison. Had he written a higher caliber article I would have been tempted to ask for such explanation. But this article is the work of an amateur who is good enough to be a Harvard law professor and nothing more; let Harvard deal with him on that score.

The reason I do not ask Dershowitz to elaborate is not only that I want to avoid having to sort out his geese from his ganders or that it is more appropriate to compare Israel with the Nazis than with the Americans, the Brits or the Russians, the reason is simpler than that. It is encapsulated in this one question: if, as he claims, Israel has introduced such improvements to better the kill ratio by 30 folds, then why did the campaign in Lebanon which came after these improvements turn out as badly as the "dark days of the Intifada?"

A con artist to the core, the man is incorrigible. He may believe that to pull a fast one on the public is part of being a good lawyer doing the best that he can for his client. But in his attempt to quantify Israel's successes at butchering people, Dershowitz has relied on the same old mentality which got him and Israel into trouble in the first place. He may think he has managed to quantify a few small successes but in reality he only managed to expose the enormous evil that lurks at the heart of the Judeo-Zionist ideology.

Rather than improve the image of Israel and earn a few kisses, Dershowitz has a better chance now at seeing himself blow kisses at a portrait of Hitler than see someone sane blow kisses at Israel's army of occupation.

Quantifying The Zionist Horror

To scare people about the Arabs and about Islam, the Zionists say they are excessively ferocious when retaliating against the wrong that is done to them. But words like excessive and ferocious mean very little in a discussion of this nature because they are the subjective description of an event and they mean different things to different people. In recognition of these facts, the scientific mind has created a way to quantify the magnitude of various events so as to provide a reliable means by which to compare such events and to put them in perspective. Two widely varied but complementary cases are discussed below to show how these things play themselves out in the real world.

What is normally done to quantify the ferocity with which two combatants fight a war is to count the number of dead and wounded each side inflicts on the other. The count can be refined by separating the military casualties from the civilian ones because the civilian casualties point to the intent that each combatant has had as they went into the war. A further refinement can be made by weighing the relative strengths of the combatants because the stronger you are compared to your enemy the more surgically you can conduct your operations.

However, when you try to apply this wisdom to the wars that Israel has launched against her neighbors, you are stopped in your tracks and told that you cannot make such comparisons. You try to find out why but you are never given a straightforward answer. And then, in a roundabout way, you are told something to the effect that numbers can be misleading or that they are meaningless in this situation.

You remind your Zionist interlocutors that ten times more Lebanese than Israelis were killed in the war that Israel launched against her neighbor not long ago. You point out that the dead Lebanese were mostly civilians whereas the dead Israelis were mostly soldiers. You remark that to compare the Israeli war machine with that of the other side is like comparing David and Goliath, all of which say that Israel went into the war with a hunger for Arab civilian blood that makes Dracula look like a harmless kisser of necks. Not exactly a scientific analogy but you still get back the refrain that numbers do not mean anything.

You go at it again and this time you remind your Zionist interlocutors that the numbers game is their most cherished game. They play it incessantly with regards to the Holocaust which they keep saying resulted in 6 million dead Jews and with regards to other matters. Yes, they reply but this is something else. And so you ask: Something else like what? And you keep asking similar questions in an effort to get to the bottom of the matter. You do get to that bottom eventually if you persist long enough and if you manage to cut through the murky substances you encounter on your way to the abyss of the Zionist modes of thinking.

After a long and contorted journey into the inner darkness of the Zionist soul, you analyze the various sordid responses you were given piecemeal and you discover that they boil down to the claim that the suffering of Jews matters to man because it matters to God but the suffering of Arabs and of Muslims matters neither to man nor to God.

And then it dawns on you that if this is what they think now, it must be what they were thinking when they started the killing spree. And the reason why they launched all those wars against their neighbors may well have been to exterminate the people who live in the neighborhood. These were, therefore, wars of genocide launched by a gang which, thank heaven, could not shoot straight even when it was equipped with the most lethal and the most user friendly weapons that man has ever invented.

And with the failure to exterminate their neighbors tucked under their belt, they are now going around the World scaring the races about the good people of the Middle East in the hope of recruiting as many mercenary nations as they can and get them to join the effort which they hope will complete the genocide that they started.

So far only one sucker nation has responded wholeheartedly to the call for genocide and that is the United States of America. It happened not because the people of that country want it but because the Zionist fifth column has infiltrated the sensitive institutions of the country and has spoiled them from within. The descendants of those who exterminated the Natives and lynched the Blacks said no more of this but the Zionists told the gatekeepers of the institutions that democracy means you kiss my rear end. Kissing my rear end now means exterminating the Arabs and this is what you will gear yourselves to do for the next little while.

To repeat the cycle where they accuse someone of what they are and then strike, the Zionists are now accusing the Arabs and the Muslims of preparing a fifth column to take over the West which is what they have accomplished and continue to work on so as to tighten their grip on the Western way of life, the means of production and the cultural heritage.

To quantify the new Zionist accusation and to compare the reach of the Judeo-Zionist community with that of the Islamo-Arab community I ask: How many Jewish luminaries are there in the American political, cultural, economic and military institutions capable of taking control of the Western destiny? And how many Arab or Muslim luminaries are there?

The answer is that there is no comparison to be made here. You don't even need the power of science to respond to the question; you only need simple common sense. And if you want to know why this is so, you read pieces such as that which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on December 19, 2007 under the title: Egypt working to reclaim the desert. Remote areas grow crops, but some say they are ignored. It will remind you of the evil that has plagued Western journalism for nearly half a century and has contributed greatly to the Zionists taking over America on their way to subverting Western Civilization.

On the face of it this is an article that is supposed to be favorable to Egypt but look at the title itself, it has the word BUT in it. In an effort to make the article look balanced, the writer was forced to fetch a ton of negatives and sprinkle them throughout the piece. And when you look closely at these negatives, you find them to be so trivial you feel it in your bones they are the work of the Zionist lobby.

One of these negatives is the incessant repetition of false numbers. For nearly half a century, absolutely not a single publication - not one - in all of North America has ever, ever mentioned unemployment in Egypt without throwing the automatic claim that someone said it was twice the figure given by officials. It is as if every time a North American reporter went to Egypt in the past fifty years, he or she has bumped haphazardly into someone who knows that the unemployment rate in Egypt is twice the rate given by officials and was prepared to say so. Pure random chance places that someone at the right place at the right time without fail.

But people are intelligent enough to realize that the Zionists have always had an evil motive to want to trivialize a few things in life. They have trivialized the existence of unemployment in Egypt with such monotonous repetition of their sick refrain that the subject has now reached parity with the trivialization they have achieved with regard to the Holocaust. Thanks to the Zionists, it is now as banal to mention unemployment in Egypt as it is to talk about the Holocaust. Nobody gives a hoot (make that a damn) about either subject anymore, nobody.

And you don't need science to understand the enormity of what follows; you only need elementary mathematics and some common sense. Since the building of the Aswan dam, Egypt has added 3 million acres of arable land to the 5 million acres it had before the dam. Yet, from the moment that the Egyptians announced they had the intention to build the dam to decades after that, the amount of ink that was spilled in the North American publications trying to denigrate the project could have run the hydro power station at Aswan for a year. It would have provided Egypt with 18 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity worth about a billion dollars. Too bad they wasted all that ink for nothing.

Then came the Toschka-New-Valley project to the West of Aswan and there too, an entire river of ink was wasted expressing wishful thinking that the project may fail. And now the Abu Minqar project as mentioned in the article of the San Francisco Chronicle where tons of negatives are splashed by the media to cast doubt about the viability of the project. Sick, hateful, unprofessional and useless as ever. Typical American responses to Zionist commands.

But here comes the big fun because it deals with the making of simple mathematical comparisons and reaching explosive conclusions. Those of us who are above a certain age remember that the reason why the Jewish hordes from Europe said they had the right to kill Palestinians and take their land was because the Palestinian farmers did not know how to plant the land they lived on and planted for thousands of years whereas the gun toting Kibbutznicks, the Jewish Mafia bosses, the jewelers and the violin players from Europe knew how to do that better.

Never mind that Palestine was referred to as the land of milk and honey in antiquity and that it remained at the center of the Fertile Crescent ever since antiquity, the Jewish hordes from Europe imagined by the power of their sick fantasies a desert they could turn into green fields. And why would they not imagine such thing when they had the power to convince the American Administrators, lawmakers, journalists and televangelists of a lie so big it resulted in the Americans ruining the lives of millions of their people and ruining the treasury of their nation to the tune of trillions of dollars so as to try and realize for Israel the glory it hungered for but could never reach even with the help of the Americans? Why not delude the self when you can delude a giant sucker so effectively and so completely?

Let us now look at the numbers. The total surface area of Israel is 5 million acres of which 800,000 acres are used for agriculture. This is less than the million acres of arable land that existed before Palestine was invaded by the gun toting Kibbutz dwellers, the killers and the terrorists from Europe who came together with the violin players and the jewelers.

All the while, Egypt has reclaimed 3 million acres of desert land despite the war of 1956 and the economic blockade that followed, both of which were inflicted on the country precisely to prevent it from building the Aswan dam and from reaping the good things that have accrued to the people of Egypt since that time.

This increase in acreage alone is almost 4 times as large as the entire cultivated area of Israel. Yet, the North American media make a big hullabaloo every time Israel plants a tree to replace the 4 or 5 that die as a result of the acid rain emanating from the ageing coal fired power plants used in that godforsaken place. At the same time, those same North American media flow rivers of venom every time Egypt grows more food to feed millions of people and incidentally, food to feed Israel too which is increasingly turning to Egypt for food aid having been turned down for an increase in fuel aid.

And when the Egyptians say they plan to triple the area of their cultivated land over the next ten years, people believe them because the track record is there to show that they have the will and the know-how to do it. Because of this, it is reasonable to expect that in parallel to the water which is now flowing and will continue to flow in the Egyptian desert, billions of cubic meters of venom will be flowing in the North American media, all of them inspired by the Zionist Lords of Hate and Envy and all of them trying to denigrate the Egyptian successes.

Who cares, you ask? A few of us do because it is this kind of talk that leads the lawmakers in the United States of America to starve their own children and let them go without insurance or health care while they fall over each other like frogs at mating time not to reproduce themselves - there is too many of their kind as it is - but to vote in the Congress at 98% and 100% levels in favor of Israel receiving American made helicopters and using them to slaughter Palestinian babies and their mothers in the middle of the night in their modest beds in their impoverished homes in what is left of their country.

No spectacle in history has looked more disgustingly fruitcakish than the Congress of the United States of America soaking in the Zionist ideology without making any attempt at engaging their critical thinking. They come to the Congress after every election but considering the deficiencies of the so-called system of democracy in which they operate they are as good as brain dead on arrival.

Considering all the aforementioned, saving one innocent Palestinian child or one innocent American child is worth the destruction of the evil regime that has the American Congress in its grip like a snake has a mouse in its jaws. There is no apology to be made when discussing the horror that is the Judeo-Zionist set-up. There is an apology to be made for not speaking out sooner.