The Jackass And The Ace In The Hole

House Representative Peter King of New York who will soon become chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security plans to hold hearings about what he calls homegrown terrorism. The reason why he wants to do this, he says, is that the Muslim community is the only one that does not report to the authorities on its members when one of them plans to conduct an act of violence, and the community learns about it. The usually foul mouthed Peter King who has yet to meet his match explains that his intention is not to defame the community or to hound it but to have a rational dialogue with it and thus reach a consensus as to what to do next that will reduce the danger of homegrown terrorism taking hold in America. So here is an attorney that cannot hold a rational dialogue any better than he can locate his asshole now planning to hold a dialogue that is as honest as he was passionate about snitching on the activities of the Irish Republican Army which he supported to the hilt and then some.

Well, I am not a Muslim and I do not live in America. I am a catholic of Egyptian descent with strong family ties to the Coptic Church. We have lived in Canada since the early 1960s and I can say based on my experience that Peter King is wrong about everything he said and was disgraceful in making the insinuations that he did whether he made them out of ignorance or made them out of malice. First of all, many of the cases that came to light in Canada, America and Britain show that someone -- usually a member of the family -- had snitched on the would be culprit and the authorities moved to apprehend the suspect or they neglected to do so in time. Second of all, if Muslim kids do not snitch on each other, I can tell you as a retired teacher that this is not a Muslim problem but a universal one. The code of silence is alive and well everywhere on this Continent, especially among the young, and I suspect that such is the case in Europe too.

Now that these points have been clarified, let us not push them aside or forget about them because they stand at the heart of this discussion in that they beget the following questions: Who put these words in the mouth of Peter King and why did they do it? Of all the cities that exist in the world, the Jewish Mafia together with the Italian Mafia sprung up in New York city, Peter King's hometown, toward the end of the Nineteenth Century and they persisted till the middle of the last Century because the members practiced “omerta” which means code of silence. Other mafias came later such as the Vietnamese, the Chinese and the Russian but no inquiry was ever setup by Peter King or anyone to probe why the code of silence existed among their members too. And there came gangs of youths in New York City and many American cities, gangs like the old Jewish Defense League, the Latino gangs, the Black gangs, the Irish gangs (including Peter King's IRA), the new Jewish Defense League and so on and so forth but no inquiry was setup to probe why the members of these gangs did not snitch on each other. And in contrast to the code of silence that was strictly adhered to in those communities, what really happens now with the Muslim community is that a disgruntled “lone wolf” will be reported to the authorities if and when he is detected by a friend or a member of the family. And yet Peter King shamelessly says that the Muslims do not snitch on those among them who get out of line, and this is why he needs to hold an inquiry. Clearly then, Peter King of New York is a sick man regurgitating the sick notions that are relentlessly stuffed in his mouth by the sickly Jewish organizations that rule in New York and in Washington, and work to buttress their own self interests and nothing else.

We should nevertheless welcome the setting up of such an inquiry because a few realities need to be brought to light which Peter King may well be instrumental in doing while not realizing that he is undermining the goals from hell that he and his masters are hoping to achieve. Whether the inquiry will bring these realities out in full or will only cause more questions to be asked, the ball will have started to roll toward the uncovering of the ultimate truth which is mind boggling to say the least. It is something I have known for some time now, something I discussed on this website with the example I gave pertaining to my interaction with the Montreal lawyer Ralph Cohen and the people that did him in. It is something to the effect that unsuspecting individuals (the preference at this time is that they be Muslim) are as a matter of course picked, nurtured, incited even paid to commit illegal acts by the Jewish organizations that seek to serve their own ends. In doing what they do, these organizations manage to achieve one of two outcomes depending on the choice they ultimately make.

Under one choice, the organizations will let the illegal acts be committed and thus give themselves total control over the individual they can now blackmail thus make a permanent victim out of him and a tool in their hands. And they will, at the same time, give someone (in this case the Muslim community) a bad name such as Peter King is laboring to do in his own peculiar way. Under the other choice, the Jewish organizations will report on the victim to the authorities which will continue his victimization with the immoral, even criminal practice of entrapping him. They will, in fact, be entrapping someone who, in most cases, will turn out to be a disturbed young individual in need of medical attention more than anything else. And to say that the Jewish organizations will put the entire society in danger to carry out this dastardly sort of acts in conjunction with the docile authorities that never question the motivation of a Jew is beyond belief. And to realize that all of this is done solely for the theatrics generated by the arrest and the media circus that follows, boggles the mind no end.

What is important to note is that the mentality behind the activities undertaken by the Jewish organizations and the general approach that is followed by them are not something that started recently. In fact, long before 9/11 something similar was happening in Montreal – and I am certain everywhere else in the world – when it was known inside the Jewish community that many of the so-called anti-Semitic acts were committed by the Jewish organizations themselves to evoke the sympathy of the public and collect money or to frame someone. At some point I even got the sense that something more odious was being planned by the Jewish organizations but I could not obtain the hard evidence that was necessary to take the matter public or take it to the authorities. And the plan never took off anyway and perhaps will never take off because if it is still in the planning, it will be trashed as I am about to reveal it to the world. It is that the so-called Reformed Jews hate the Orthodox Jews so vehemently; they wish they can incite a kid (preferably a Muslim kid) to commit a serious act of violence against the Orthodox Jews. The aim is to get these Jews to run to the Reformed Jews and beg for protection upon which they will be told how to live and how to serve the causes espoused by the Reformed Jews -- the most important being the matter of determining who is a Jew and who is not.

At the beginning of their march to dominate the English speaking world, the Jewish organizations could manipulate the events and set in motion only such institutions as the local police forces and the local politicians which they utilized to play their never-ending sickly games. Things have now evolved to such a degree that these same organizations can and do manipulate the entire security apparatus of the English speaking world even reach out beyond it. This is something they do in coordination with their manipulation of the media because the aim is no longer restricted to the gathering of sympathy for the Jewish causes but to turn the entire society against the Muslims the way that Europe repeatedly turned against the Jews throughout the ages and culminated in the triggering of the Holocaust. Indeed, the Peter King inquiry was conceived by these organizations to be a part of their scheme and to play a visible role in it. But why would they want to do this? The answer to this question is that they want to do it because they are powered by several emotions, two of which are dominant at this time.

First, they believe that every game is a zero sum game. Thus, they seek to increase the hatred of society for the Arabs and the Muslims as a way to increase the love of society for the Jews. To see where they got this idea, I ask the reader to go back in memory to a time when John Demjanjuk, the American auto worker who was accused of being a guard at a Nazi concentration camp, was dragged kicking and screaming by several men who threw him into a plane and shipped him to Israel for prosecution there. People with connections inside the Jewish organizations told me that when this video was played to a number of executives inside one organization, it was like a bomb of joy had exploded inside their bellies. The executives found the scene so enchanting and so delicious that they decided to take control of the immigration policy in North America and send a signal to everyone that if they want to live in North America and be left alone they must love the Jews madly or they will be dragged kicking and screaming and thrown out of the country like a Demjanjuk. And this is when those organizations accelerated the execution of a very old plan they had in mind. They looked for and found someone with a very Jewish name to groom for a delicate job; they created an organization that advocated immigration reform in America and placed him at its head. To see what happened after that, we need to borrow a term from the old Rowan and Martin Laugh-In show; it is that the fickle finger of fate blew the scheme in their faces when the latest economic crisis demonstrated that America's salvation lies in the opening of the doors of immigration. Thus, the same Jewish individuals and organizations that lobbied vociferously in the past to steadily shut the doors of immigration are now scurrying like eager beavers to lobby for the opening of the doors of immigration more widely than they have ever been.

Second, they want to show that the genocidal trait is very much a part of the human DNA to prove that the Holocaust was not triggered by the behavior and the activities of the Jewish leaders but that it came about because human beings are an evil lot constructed from defective genes. Thus, if the Jewish organizations can engineer and trigger an anti-Arab holocaust or even a mild pogrom in the English speaking world or in Continental Europe, they will be able to prove their point and walk not like a Jew but walk with their heads high like a gentile. In fact, making life unbearable for the Arabs is something they were caught trying to do as far back as when Al Gore was Vice President serving under Bill Clinton. They did not have the excuse of 9/11 then but they tried to use the office of the Vice President anyway to single out the Arab Americans for profiling and for hounding simply because of who these people were. In fact, the Jewish organizations were on the road to doing in America what Avigdor Lieberman is now doing in Israel and what Peter King has been instructed to try and do yet again in America.

I wrote an article about the matter in an Arabic newspaper published in Montreal in the Nineteen Nineties and was attacked for it in a Toronto newspaper that is owned and published by the bootlegging people who head the World Jewish Congress. But the piece they published was so marred by oxymorons, the thing sounded more like a sick joke than a serious response to my views, so I let it go at that. In any case, it is clear today as it was then that the aim of the Jewish organizations is to get the English speaking world to develop an attitude toward the Arabs and Islam like the attitude that existed in Europe toward the Jews on the eve of say, Crystal Night. But the sun is still shining, the night keeps eluding those creatures of the night and the crystals are nowhere to be seen. And this is something that the evildoers do not consider delicious enough to explode a bomb of joy in their bellies. The poor suckers, I call them. Why do they keep doing it to themselves and to their people – those among them who are innocent and those who are not?

My expectation now is that the inquiry will be instrumental in shedding light on these realities whether or not Peter King knows what he is doing, or whether or not he likes what will be revealed despite his effort to engineer a new era of darkness in America. As to what he'll do after that, I'll tell you what he'll do; he'll still be trying to locate his asshole. This man is not a brilliant attorney with an ace in the hole; he is a jackass with a problem at the rear end of his anatomy, the reason why he has accepted to be a stooge under the thumb of the perennial losers of humanity.

Bordello With A Landlord Asleep At The Switch

I'm supposed to be on vacation but things keep happening that I cannot leave without a response. So here is my contribution for this week.

In the House of Representatives of the US Congress that has just dissolved, 53 pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos did what has come to epitomize America's fall from the pedestal of superpower and symbolize the country's descent into the cesspool of irrelevance, uselessness and the designation – together with Israel -- of being dangerous to the civilized heritage that humanity has built for itself. When contrasted against the background that was America's glorious history in the Twentieth Century, the current state of America can only leave you with sorrow and pity at the massive losses that the American people are made to endure at this time and will undoubtedly continue to endure in the years and decades to come. To put all this into context and to understand its ramifications, it is necessary to paint the background against which the events have unfolded in the recent past and are still unfolding at this time.

The American system of governance used to be thought of as the model of political ingenuity and the cause of everything supreme and enviable happening in that nation. The American people themselves thought that their country was exceptional, and most of the world concurred with this perception. But not anymore. Gone are the days when the young in the emerging nations of the world used to dream of seeing their countries develop and become magnificent like America. Today, America is seen as the decaying empire that is posing a grave danger to the world while it continues to crumble and blame its misfortune on everyone but itself. If anything, the world would like to help America stay on its feet to minimize the damage it may cause by its descent into greater ruin. Alas, the more that time passes the more it becomes clear that this will be a difficult thing to achieve if not an impossible one because the disease that is affecting America today is more exceptional in a negative sense than the positive exceptionalism which was attributed to the country in times past.

Since the beginning of time, wise people have known that no system can be made so perfect as to be invulnerable to all manners of encroachment. The Americans have known this too, and one of their greats alluded to it when he said that the cure to the problems of democracy was more democracy. He acknowledged by this that democracy can run into difficulties but he only offered the general assurance that the cure to such problems will be found within democracy itself. Unfortunately, he refrained from getting into the argument any deeper than that and he did not give specific examples to enlighten the discourse. However, it is becoming clearer by the day that inasmuch as the cure to the problems of democracy can be found inside democracy, the diseases of democracy can be caused by the excesses generated by democracy. Thus, democracy has within it both the disease to cause its own problems and the cure to remove them. Because of this, democracy should be seen as neither superior to any system of governance nor inferior to them given that all systems are a work in progress exhibiting varying degrees of strengths and weaknesses and depending for their execution on the character of the people at the helm.

What this says is that when you stand in a frame of reference that is outside of America's frame, the country appears to be no more exceptional at this time than the other countries. But if you step inside America's frame of reference, you view things differently and conclude that America is still an exceptional country. Thus, it can be stated logically that what is exceptional about America today is that it is so molded as to believe it is exceptional whether or not this is true. And because most of the country's behavior is tethered to this notion, it will be difficult to find a cure for the disease. But this attitude is something new to America; it is a trait that the country has acquired at a time when it was beginning to lose ground to other nations. Previous to that, America displayed greatness by being modest; it was a time when America did not think of itself as being above anyone and did not behave in such manner. The superpower was happy to live as equal with its fellow human beings even when it was clearly ahead of everyone. So then, what happened to change all that?

We find the answer to this question when we realize that people view themselves as being exceptional when they start to believe they were made superior by a force they cannot explain and do not try to explain because they prefer to live with the fantasy than probe it and risk discovering they were wrong. The reality is that since the beginning of recorded history, people have been made to feel superior by virtue of belonging to a racial, ethnic or religious group, and it is out of this notion that all forms of exceptionalist behavior were derived. From the dynasties of ancient eras who thought they were gods to the Nazis of the modern era who thought they were made of a genetically superior material, many such notions have come and gone. But one such notion has persisted through time and has refused to go away despite the fact that its adherents were put to death because of their beliefs and what the beliefs made them do. This notion came into being in the Second Century AD and was given the name Rabbinical Judaism. From that time to this day, it has been recruiting new adherents by telling them that they will become the chosen children of God when they convert. Some apparently normal and intelligent human beings fall for the pitch and do convert.

If there is something different about this notion, it is that those who pitch it have found a way to live like leeches at the expense of their hosts then bolt out when disaster hits. It may be argued that this is something so unique to it; it makes it exceptional at least in this one sense. And the way that these leeches live at the expense of their hosts is to make them a very simple proposition: “Someone took something that belongs to you. Hand me your soul and I shall help you take back what is yours.” This is what the Zionist movement adhering to Rabbinical Judaism told the Americans about Arab oil when the Arabs were getting 2 dollars and 60 cents for each barrel they sold. But instead of getting Israel to help America procure the oil at a cheaper price as promised, the Americans are now paying nearly 100 dollars a barrel having spent a trillion dollars already fighting the Arabs and all of Islam trying to take what the Jewish organizations told them was theirs. In addition, America that sold its soul for a fake promise is now dishing out nearly a billion dollars a month in direct and indirect ways to supply that same Israel with energy. And America is doing all of this apparently unaware that the alternative is to tell the little fart that it should work things out with its neighbors and learn to live with them like normal human beings do everywhere else on the planet.

But why did America not see the writing on the wall and deduce that things were not going to happen as promised? Because America was fooled by the supremacist argument. It was told by the Jewish organizations that have owned it for sometime and are running it through directives issued by the group calling itself AIPAC that the world hates America not because of what it was made to do but because it is big and strong, because it is beautiful and magnificent and because every one in the world is envious and hateful of its achievements like they are of the Jews who have achieved the status of chosen children of God. So here they are; the Jews who are the chosen ones and America that is the exceptional one, both of whom will so remain until the time comes when the AIPAC leaders will decide that it is time for them to bolt out and abandon the suckers who bought their pitch and converted to their fake religion. They will leave the suckers to fend for themselves all alone and defend their existence against a looming pogrom or a full blown holocaust. As you can see, my friend, the wheel goes round and round yet some people never learn that was goes around comes around.

Which brings us around to the 53 pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos at the US House of Representatives. What these people did was to take advantage of a deficiency in the rules of the House pertaining to the quorum. It used to be that at least half the members of the House should be present to make a quorum upon which a vote can be taken. This rule still exists on the books but because the duties of the members proliferated and they could not always make a quorum, the House amended its own rule and made it so that any number of people can get together -- say in the middle of the night -- and call themselves a lawfully constituted quorum unless one member objects and insists that a count be taken to make sure that at least 218 members are present. But this is a whole bunch of hogwash because if you are 53 pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos, you will not make a point of order to show that you are participating in the whorish exercise that is the Judeo-American style of democracy. Instead, you will go ahead with the vote and even have a consensus because if you had one dissension, you will not have been allowed to take the vote in the first place.

And so, it was said that the US House of Representatives has passed a resolution by consensus filled with filth and garbage, crap and scum as a way to urge the American Administration to stand by Netanyahu of Israel, give him all that he wants and give him even more. And on cue, the Jewish propaganda machine got into gear, lit up it afterburners and took the news to the world, especially the Arab world to tell them that Netanyahu's pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos in Washington are still in control of America and they will continue to consume what is left of that pathetic place for the glory of Israel.

Is there a cure for this disease? Time will tell. In the meantime, however, the new Congress should look at the quorum rule of the House and do something about it.

A Day Of Infamy At Oslo

I am on vacation except that something happened to which I feel the need to respond right away. I do so now and resume my vacation until next year when I shall see you here again.

I write this missive in response to the speech that was given in Oslo by the Chairman of the Nobel Committee, Thorbjorn Jagland when the Peace Prize was awarded on December 10, 2010 to the Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. The missive speaks to the people of the Nobel Committee but it is also an open letter to the leaders of China.

Because people form an opinion early on about the intent of the message they are reading, I shall begin by making my intention clear as to where I am coming from lest there be a misunderstanding as to what I mean. To that end, I pose this question: Who do you think is worse; a disciplinarian parent that may at times resort to harsh measures to discipline his child or an apparently sociable parent that keeps his daughter hidden in the basement of the house a lifetime without feeling remorse or pity but uses her to satisfy his sexual appetite which never seems to get satisfied? You get my drift, I hope.

Mr. Jagland of the Nobel Committee made comparisons between what he called democracies and what he called dictatorships. He left no doubt in the mind of the audience that he believes all democracies are lumped together and are good because they are sociable; and left no doubt that all dictatorships are lumped together and are bad because they are disciplinarian. Jagland put it this way: “During the cold war, the connections between peace and human rights were disputed. Since the end of the cold war, however, peace researchers and political scientists have almost without exception underlined how close those connections are. This is, allegedly, one of the most 'robust' findings they have arrived at. Democracies may go to war against dictatorships, and have certainly waged colonial wars, but there is, apparently, not a single example of a democracy having gone to war against another democracy.”

Since this was the moment in the speech when Mr. Jagland seemed to be lecturing to the world, I am going to be so bold as to give him a friendly advice: he should never, ever again lecture about the “robust” findings he discovers in the publications that are put out by the Jewish organizations if he wants his credibility to remain intact for, the findings that these organizations make are always fabricated and always self-serving. In fact, the researchers and the political scientists he mentions have concocted that specific finding to respond to questions regarding the war-like rhetoric that emanates from some circles in Israel and in America to win votes and get elected every time there is an election. Those characters fabricated the findings to justify Israel's colonial assault on Palestine, justify its never ending wars of aggression against its neighbors and justify its never ending incitement of America to attack one country, to bomb another and to kill people just about everywhere else. Since all of this is done in the name of democracy, it has been argued, it is kosher, halal and blessed like the good heart of the Virgin Mary. What do you say about that Thorbjorn Jagland?

When asked about America's clandestine wars against the democratically elected governments of Iran and Chile in decades past, those same characters had no answer and neither did the non-Jewish Americans who participated in the various debates that ensued. And then, the self-described democracies of Israel and America went around knifing the new born democracies in their cribs such as happened in Palestine and Venezuela when the people there voted for leaders and parties that refused to slavishly follow the dictates of Israel or America. And the analogy here, if you still need one, is that of the sociable parent who goes into the basement in the middle of the night to knife the children he fathered when he impregnated his own daughter. Apparently, all of this has escaped the notice of Mr. Jagland who still believes that no democracy has gone to war against another democracy which makes it so – in his mind at least -- that the colonial wars which are periodically waged by the self-described democracies are more palatable than the actions of a disciplinarian parent such as the government of China represents. What kind of garbage is this?

Unlike him who made no effort to distinguish between the various shades of dictatorships and the various shades of democracies that exist today, I am of the opinion that the existing regimes around the world are so complex and so varied that the best of the benevolent authoritarian regimes can be more preferable than the worst of the democracies, let alone those that pretend to be democracies. I am here using the terms authoritarian regimes and democracies in the way that they are commonly defined because I don't want to create more confusion than exists already. But if it were up to me, I would call all those regimes by different names. To expand a little more on these points, I must tell something I did not want to tell at this time but find it necessary to do so now.

I wrote a few times on this website about my friend Ralph Cohen, the well known and well respected Jewish lawyer who died a few years ago. He was a friend of John Diefenbaker, the Canadian Prime Minister who first brought to Canada the Bill of Rights. Cohen was basically a divorce lawyer but he became interested in human rights and if fact, traveled several times to South Africa on missions pertaining to human rights. In the meantime he had amassed a huge clientele in Montreal, one that kept calling on him socially at a time when the Province of Quebec was turning increasingly more French thus squeezing out the uni-lingual English lawyers like him. This meant that people came in and out of his office all the time but they generated little income for him. In view of this, I and a number of people who, on occasions, had free time on our hands would go to his office and take the phone calls or meet the people who dropped in while he was in court or out conducting other business. We called ourselves the Friends of Ralph; we lived near the area where he had his office and we got to know each other closely. If we did not meet in his office, we met in the nearby pub or in one of the restaurants where we talked and exchanged news and stories while he was alive, and for a while after he died.

Ralph Cohen did the legal work that allowed me to open my school upon which I got busy and ceased to go sit in his office. One day he called and asked me to go see him on an urgent matter. When I got there he told me that an organization helping people in distress around the world wanted me to do them a favor. It wanted me to register in my school people that will not take the course but wished to remain in Canada despite the fact that they were denied the status of refugee or were likely to be denied. This request was so unusual and made so little sense that I asked questions. From his unsteady answers, I got the feeling that Ralph himself was uncertain as to what was involved. And I was taken aback when he said that I may never get to see the would-be refugees but must issue the registration papers and sign them while I leave blank the name of the student and the date, all of which will be inserted when the time comes. For this, I was going to be paid the usual registration fee but I could double it if I so wished. I told Ralph I could not do any of that; he said he understood and he would not hold it against me. I left the office suspicious that something very serious was going on but was not quite sure what it was and why Ralph was involved with it.

I went back to the school that afternoon, and went home that night thinking and searching all the time for a possible scenario that will piece together all the elements that came to light and tell me what was going on. It slowly dawned on me that someone wanted me to make a mistake whereby they could blackmail me and get me to make more mistakes thus become their running dog and obey them on command. This was clearly an attempt to entrap me but why would someone want to do that, and how much of this was Ralph Cohen aware of? And then it hit me that two or three days before Ralph had called me, I tried to participate in a phone-in television show carried coast to coast on the CBC's World News channel. We were at the beginning of the first Gulf War and I called to say that we should tell the Americans not to cause too much collateral damage to the civilian population in Iraq but was cut off by the host of the show who hung up on me because I was a moderate Arab voice and she was a running dog of the Jewish organizations that ran the CBC at the time the way they run most of the North American media today. Even though I was yanked off the air in the middle of the talk and denied the chance to say all that I wanted to say, they thought I should still be turned into a running dog serving their causes or made to commit a crime for which they will blackmail me or obliterated me by denouncing me to the authorities. This was the first time that the full horror of the Jewish style democracy hit me in the face. Thorbjorn Jagland, wait till you find out what you will be dragged into now.

A few weeks passed before I went to see Ralph Cohen again and right off the bat I could see that he was a different man. I started telling him what I had concluded but he seemed to know it already except for a few details he was missing on. Other than that, he said very little during the discussion and was only prepared to listen to me while he expressed sorrow with facial expressions and body language. He was more sad than I ever saw him, more pessimistic and more doubtful of the goodness of his fellow human beings. Every time I alluded to his friends at the organization that purported to help would-be refugees, the words seemed to hit him like a sword piercing his heart. Because I knew he was diabetic and had a weak heart, I decided to end the conversation here; to leave him and go away. A few weeks later the news hit the media throughout Montreal; Ralph Cohen was pacing the floor at the courthouse when he had a massive heart attack and dropped dead. They killed him, I said to myself; they betrayed him so very badly that he did not want to live anymore and died of sorrow. The bastards killed my friend Ralph Cohen and I was mad like hell.

I wanted to find out who the bastards were. Being younger at the time, I had a good memory through which I rummaged in search of a scrap of information that may tell me who might have engineered this episode. I stumbled on a discussion I had with Ralph Cohen about human rights during which he spoke fondly of John Diefenbaker. But his mood changed abruptly every time he mentioned someone else, someone more contemporary who was a lawyer but was an absolute fake – in Cohen's words -- when it came to human rights which is what preoccupied him, the man insisted. But now that Ralph was dead, I had no way of discovering who that man was except maybe through the Friends of Ralph who may have known more than I did about Ralph's list of good people and evil people. I kept asking questions until I was able to narrow my choices down to one man and his organization. He was affiliated with the McGill law school, practiced law, was interested in politics and was active in the Federal Liberal Party of Canada. Even though Ralph did not like him, he still communicated with him and tried at least initially to drag me into a scheme that could have turned me into a rabid running dog of the Jewish causes or landed me in a jail cell if I refused to bark their refrains.

Eventually the evil character ran for office, got elected and was appointed Minister of Justice at some point in time. As a lawyer, he took up cases where very little wrongdoing was committed, one of which netted him close to 10 million dollars while his client got less than a million. But unable to stomach the transfer of a million dollars to his client, he convinced a clown who is the current Minister of Immigration in Canada to give him a consolation check in the amount of a million dollars for a reason that cannot be explained. Only in Canada, eh!

And guess what happened on the morning of December 10, 2010. I was watching on television the Nobel ceremony in Oslo when the camera panned to show the audience. And there sat the Canadian delegation represented by none other than Tweedledee and Tweedledum themselves; the killer of my friend Ralph Cohen and his mentally challenged bank-roller, the Canadian Minister of Justice. What infamy!

As to what I wish to say to the leaders of China, I do not know what Mr. Liu Xiaobo did to merit 11 years of imprisonment but no matter what it is, there is always a way for a nation as ancient and magnificent as China to forgive her children however bad they may have been and let them go free or at least reduce their punishment. Liu Xiaobo will never again try to hurt his country, I am certain of that.

The Power Of Best Practices

I heard something the other day about a suggestion made to the effect that people under a certain age who drop out of school should be denied getting a driver's license or something like that. Whatever was really said or whatever was meant, I saw an irony in this item because of something that happened a long time ago as a result of which I made a comparison to help the teachers I was responsible for in the schools where I worked. It is a story I cannot tell without giving a lesson in mathematics and so, I hope the reader is in a good mood which I count on -- this being the season to be cheerful. As to the math teachers among you, I know you will like the story and maybe find the lesson useful too.

Before I started my own school I was teaching at a private school in Montreal. I was head of the microprocessor department and was also in charge of the remedial math course, a preoccupation of the school that started small but grew in importance as it became obvious that the students who took remedial math with us – having been classified at the start of the year as lagging -- ended up doing better than the students who were classified as advanced and were deemed not to need remedial math.

Eventually, things got so busy that it became necessary to appoint another teacher in remedial math to lighten the load on me. I knew he was good at teaching digital circuitry and the math that goes with it. And so, I was surprised when the students from remedial math told me early on that he was not doing well in that department. I called the teacher in my office, told him what happened and asked him to teach me the course exactly the way he was teaching it to the students. The lesson was on logarithm, a subject in which most teacher do badly because they teach it the way it was taught to them which is really bad; and this teacher was no exception. In fact, the lesson on logarithm is the point at which most students begin to hate mathematics, even quit school because of it. And to be honest, I felt like leaving the office when the teacher started the lesson on logarithm by trying to define the characteristic and the mantissa of a log without preparing me with a general view of what the subject of logarithm was about and why I should want to learn it.

When he was done, we reversed roles and I started teaching him as if he were the student and I the teacher. I went about it this way: Every problem we tackle in mathematics can be stated in a straightforward manner or stated in the reverse manner. For this reason, every mathematical operation has its own reverse operation. For example, the reverse of addition is the subtraction; the reverse of multiplication is the division. When someone says I had 5 dollars and was given 3 more dollars, you find how much money this person now has by doing 5 plus 3 equal 8 dollars. Stated in reverse, the problem sounds like this. I have 5 dollars, how many more dollars should I be given to have 8 dollars in total? To find the answer you do 8 minus 5 equal 3 dollars. You conclude that you can find the answer to a problem that is stated in a straightforward manner by doing addition; and find the answer to a problem that is stated in a reverse manner by doing subtraction.

In another set of problems you may be told that someone has 4 boxes, each of which contains 3 dollars. You find how much money this person has by doing 4 multiplied by 3 equal 12 dollars. Stated in reverse, the problem sounds like this. I have 12 dollars distributed equally inside 4 boxes; how many dollars are there in each box? To find the answer you do 12 divided by 4 equal 3 dollars in each box. Again, you can see that because division is the reverse of multiplication, you were able to solve the problem whether stated in a straightforward manner or the reverse manner.

To solve another set of problems we encounter in the natural world as well as the artificial world we created around us requires a mathematical tool we call the exponential. And this exponential has a reverse operation we call the logarithm. One tool is used to solve problems that are stated in a straightforward manner and the other is used to solve problems that are stated the reverse manner. For example, if you are a stock market genius (or a crooked insider), if after each trade you manage to grow your money to 3 times the size you started with and if you do 4 such trades a year, how many dollars will you have at the end of the year for every dollar you invest at the beginning of the year? You find the answer by doing 3 raised to the power of 4 which means 3 multiplied by itself 4 times in a row, and this comes to:

3 x 3 x 3 x 3 = 81 dollars.

Thus, if you begin the year by investing 1,000 dollars, you will have 81,000 dollars at the end of the year. As you can see even Warren Buffet could not do as well. In fact, this was an exaggerated example of compounded growth. I deliberately exaggerated the growth to make my point clear but, in real life, growth never happens by tripling with every iteration; it happens by growing a small percentage each time. This makes the math just a little more complicated but not by too much. So then, let us take an example. You inherit 1,000 dollars which you know you will not need for the next 5 years. You go to your bank manager and tell her you want to invest the money in a profitable way. She says you are lucky because this is an inflationary period and she can give you 10% interest that will be compounded over the next 5 years. She writes you a certificate, you go home and sit down to calculate how much money you will have at the end of the period. You reason that a dollar growing by 10% will be worth 1.1 dollars at the end of the first year. At the end of the second year it will have grown to:

1.1 x 1.1 = 1.21 dollars

At the end of the third year it will have grown to:

1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 = 1.331 dollars

You now see a pattern and realize that there is a shortcut to this operation. Instead of multiplying 1.1 by itself 5 times in a row to find by how much your dollar will have grown, you raise 1.1 to the power of 5 and get the correct answer which is 1.61051 dollars. Thus, the 1,000 dollar certificate that the bank manager gave you will be worth 1,610 dollars and 51 cents after 5 years of growth by compounded interest. This was a problem stated in the straightforward manner and solved with the use of the exponential.

Of course, the problem can also be stated in the reverse manner whereby it will sound something like this: How long will it take a 1,000 dollar certificate to grow to 1,610 dollars and 51 cents if the going rate of compounded interest is 10% a year? And this is where you will need logarithm to solve the problem because logarithm is the reverse of the exponential. To find the solution we use the formula: The number of years is equal to the log of 1.61051 divided by the log of 1.1. That is:

0.207/0.0414 = 5 years

When I was finished with this demonstration, the teacher was happy and he thought he will have an easy time teaching logarithm from now on because he will begin the lesson the way I did and only then plunge into the definitions of the characteristic and the mantissa. But I told him that such approach will still turn off some students because he should do one more thing before getting into the definitions. This is where my philosophy of teaching comes into play.

As I see it, the problem with the way that logarithm is taught and the way that most subjects are taught is the fact that the teachers start with the generalization then go into the specifics. In other words, they go from the abstract to the concrete when they should be doing it the other way around. The trouble with starting with the abstract is that the students will turn off before the teacher has finished talking abstract. I found that if the teacher does not tell the students early on how the subject relates to what they did previously, how it relates to what they will do later on and why the subject is important for them to understand, he or she will lose the attention of the students in no time at all. To be effective, the teacher must do all this and must give examples to maintain the attention of the students.

In fact, I had many such discussions with teachers, some of whom still insisted that the best way to teach was to go from the abstract to the concrete. This prompted me to make the following comparison to illustrate my point. I would ask the teacher: Suppose you want to teach someone how to drive a car. How would you go about it? He would say, I go to a place where there is little or no traffic, I show the student what to do and I let them do it. And so I ask: Would you begin with a long abstract introduction about the philosophy of driving? And this is where they get my point.

When it comes to teaching logarithm, we must be conscious of the fact that even if we can have a logarithm of any base, we prefer to use the base 10 common logarithm. This is no different from the preference we have for counting with the decimal system which is also based on the number 10. In fact, we see that the common logarithm is used in subjects like the earthquakes and the decibels. Another system we encounter but do so less frequently is the natural logarithm which is used almost exclusively in the calculus. Still, we do not begin to teach the children how to count by telling them there is the binary system, the decimal system, the hexadecimal system and many other systems of counting. On the contrary, we begin by teaching them the decimal system because they have 10 fingers they can see and count on. And when they have learned this system well and they want to go into something like computer science, they learn the other systems of counting, even learn to convert from one system to another. And the same should apply to the teaching of logarithm. And there is a big advantage to getting directly into the common logarithm because it allows us to temporarily skip the definitions and all the confusion that comes with them.

Thus, I told the teacher that following the introduction concerning the straightforward mathematical operations having reverse operations, I found it easy to teach logarithm by doing things this way: I tell the students that the log of a number is how many zeros it contains. For example, the log of 100 is 2, the log of 1000 is 3 and so on. And then I ask them: What is the log of a million, and they say 6 which is correct because a million contains 6 zeros. Now, I tell them this is not the full picture because I neglected to say that if the zeros follow a number other than 1, we have a new ball game. By way of example, I ask: if 2 is the log of 100 and 3 the log of 1000, what might be the log of 500 which falls between 100 and 1000? Most students will not respond but there will always be someone who will say 2.5. And this is the wrong answer; in fact, the log of 500 is 2.699. Now I ask what might be the log of 5000 and only one student in all the years that I taught logarithm guessed the correct answer which is 3.699. Why? I asked and he responded that 5000 has one zero more than the 500, therefore the 2 becomes a 3 while the 699 that follows the decimal point remains the same. In fact, the .699 is called the mantissa while the 2 is called the characteristic.

When a teacher has brought the students to this level of comprehension, he or she can tell them that a number must not necessarily end with zeros to have a log. To find the characteristic in these cases, you count the number of digits and subtract 1. Thus, the characteristic of 5739 is 3; so is the characteristic of 7295 and 8491 and so on. Now the teacher can give a full blown lesson on the logarithm, how to find the log (characteristic and mantissa) of numbers like 532 or 3729 or any number by looking up the tables or using the calculator.

And there is a lesson here for all those who are in charge of education everywhere on this planet. It is this: Every teacher teaches at least one subject in a way that is exceptionally good. If the principal of the school can determine by any method they wish to use what that subject is in every teacher under their employ, they should get the other teachers into a class with the good teacher -- not to learn a subject they already know -- but to learn how to teach it well. This is called identifying the best practices; and if every best practice in every school is picked up by all the teachers and fully utilized, the schools will improve a great deal.

It is time for me to take a rest and recharge. Merry Christmas to everyone of you and a happy New Year. I'll see you here next year.

The Washington Post A Terrorist Organization

When someone keeps talking and keeps repeating what they say over and over but you do not believe a word of what they say or respect anything they opine, you may get to a point where you finally judge it necessary that you find out what they are after because they could be dangerous in what they peddle or even dangerous despite of it. And so you listen to them carefully or you read what they write to find out what role they may play to upset the existing order. And so, from ignoring them and ignoring what they do, you make a turn and start to paint a picture not of the narrative they stitch together or the philosophy they express with the opinions they put out but you paint a picture of the fantasies they espouse. And you know that these fantasies are what makes these people tick and makes them insist on pushing a point of view so strange that it makes them look like a bunch possessed by an alien life form or by the devil himself. Well, this has been my attitude toward the editors of the Washington Post for decades but I thought lately that I should read some of what they write to see if there is something they are after that will hurt America -- a pastime that has lately been the preoccupation of many traitors in that country -- and warn the good people who live there about those who would harm them.

Without assigning weight to the veracity of what the writers at the Post are saying, let us take two of their ideas and juxtapose them. On the one hand they say that Hamas is a terrorist organization that should be bombed into the stone age, and all its members killed despite the collateral damage that this will cause to the civilian population of Gaza where Hamas rules and the damage it will cause to the West Bank of the Jordan river where some members of the movement live as well. On the other hand, those same writers at the Post say they want to see the parent of Hamas -- which they assert is the Egyptian religious party calling itself the Muslim Brotherhood – come to power in Egypt or at least win big in that land. And you ask why they want this to happen unless they like the work of terrorists and promote them when they can by putting pressure on the American government to put pressure on America's allies such as Egypt to let the terrorist organizations flourish and turn Egypt and perhaps the entire Middle East into a chaotic situation such as that in Gaza. In other words, the Washington Post is now presenting itself as a terrorist organization without apologizing.

But why do the terrorists of the Washington Post want to see bad things happen to Egypt? For one thing, Egypt has been an island of peace and stability in the Middle East and this is driving the Jewish organizations crazy because they find it difficult during these hard times to divert any amount of ill gotten money to Israel the way they have been doing things for decades. But they know of a trick they have used in the past when they were able to collect money despite the hard times and send it to Israel. What they did then was to cause a serious conflagration in the Middle East and bellyache that if financial aid was not forthcoming in a hurry, the Jews of Israel will all die in a holocaust. But to be able to duplicate this feat nowadays, they must destabilize the Middle East which can only happen if Egypt is destabilized, having been the solid bulwark in the service of peace and stability in that part of the world for decades. And so the Jewish organizations have determined that they must destabilize Egypt by empowering the movement that calls itself the Muslim Brotherhood. Whether or not this fantasy has any chance at succeeding is beside the point. The main thing is that this is what they fantasize about, and they will try to implement their plan as long as they will find running dogs such as the editorial board of the Washington Post to do the barking for them.

What excuse do they use to get the conversation going and make their point? The answer is that they use the same excuse which is used by characters who are powered by a big dose of Yiddish chutzpah and the shamelessness of a dog urinating on your lawn. They say that America is giving Egypt financial aid to the tune of a 1.5 billion dollar package every year. Actually, the figure breaks down into 1.3 billion dollars in military hardware and 0.2 billion or 200 million dollars in educational services for toddlers. There will be more later with regard to the 200 million but for now let us look at the military hardware part of the package.

No one doubts that there is an unwritten military alliance between Egypt and America. The two countries exercise together on a yearly basis and when necessary they fight together as they did during the first Gulf war. In fact, America projects its power in that part of the world in the same way that it does in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. The difference is that instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars stationing its own troops on ships and perhaps on land too the way it does everywhere else, America relies on Egypt to maintain peace and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea for which it contributes not cash but a measly 1.3 billion dollars in military hardware. The cost to Egypt is several times that much but what is happening now is that being made sick and tired by the garbage that is constantly pouring out of the Jewish propaganda machine, the Egyptians are beginning to listen to the voices among them that counsel the country to diversify its procurement of military hardware as a prelude to breaking off the military alliance with America.

If and when this happens, Egypt will gain more financially because the Americans will spend 1.3 billion dollars or more not every year as they do now but every month to maintain their troops on ships in the area, ships that will include aircraft carriers. These ships and the aircrafts they carry will have to be supplied with fuel and they will need to cross the Suez Canal back and forth. They will also carry thousands of soldiers, marines and airmen who will need to be supplied with food and the other amenities of life, most of which will be bought and paid for in Egypt. And of course, there will also be the personnel that will want to take shore leave and see beautiful Egypt. Some of these people may even call on their loved ones in America to go meet them in there. Thus, financially speaking, this deal would be more costly for America and more lucrative for Egypt.

It will also be in the interest of the Egyptians to opt for this alternative because they have been running a trade deficit with the Americans, one that is striking in the coincidences that have come with it. First, the deficit has been running for as long as Israel has been running a trade surplus with America. Second, the amount of the Egyptian deficit has almost exactly matched the surplus of Israel with America. In other words, Egypt has been offsetting the damage to the American economy that Israel has been causing. In anybody's book, this amounts to Egypt giving America a financial aid to help it overcome the calamity that is Israel. And calamity it is because Israel does not even produce what it sells to America, it reexports to America what it buys from Europe and Asia, something that the Americans could do directly and save the money that is pocketed by Israel. But this is not happening because all the transactions are controlled by Jewish businessmen who are more loyal to Israel than to America and who divert to Israel the profits and the taxes that should be kept in America.

Now, a word about the 200 million dollars that the Egyptians are said to receive from America. To put this thing in perspective, if you divide that number by the population of Egypt which is slightly over 80 million, it turns out that every Egyptian receives less than two and a half dollars a year or just about two thirds of a cent a day. So why do the Egyptians accept this money? Because it is part of the deal that was worked out at Camp David concerning the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. It was negotiated that Israel which produces close to nothing was to be given enough to live on, and Egypt was to be compensated for the loss in trade and commerce it will incur as a result of the neighbors boycotting it for accepting a deal while Palestine was still under occupation. Thus, it is a matter of principle for the government of Egypt to insist that a negotiated deal must be honored until both sides agree to nullify it. And what the Egyptian government has agreed to do so far is to scale down that portion of the package from the 700 million dollars where it was to the 200 million dollars where it is today. And the reason to have it at this level now is that the Egyptians have been doing what everyone does which is to borrow money on the international markets to finance their purchases. It so happens that the payments they are making on these borrowings come to 200 million dollars, most of which they send to American banks.

Consequently, the way things work at this juncture is that Egypt buys 7 or 8 billion dollars worth of goods from America every year to offset the deficit that America runs with Israel. Egypt pays for the purchases in cash but borrows some money to cover a small shortfall. It sends to America 200 million dollars a year to pay back the borrowed money which America then gives to American volunteers at the rate of two thirds of a cent per day per person living in Egypt to go and teach Egyptian toddlers all about the beauty and grandeur of America. All I can say is: too bad for somebody – I am not sure who – that Egypt will have paid the entire loan in two or three years and this arrangement will come to an end. But the folks at the Washington Post are still hollering and barking that America is giving financial aid to Egypt -- aid that should come with strings attached, they say. And while the Egyptian government is accepting this part of the package as a matter of principle, the people of Egypt are saying to America: Take those dollars and shove them, baby.

But there is more juicy stuff in this saga. Going bankrupt and no longer able to pay for Israel's energy needs, the Americans have called on the Egyptians to revive the spirit of the Camp David accord but they did it with an ironic twist. They asked the Egyptians to supply Israel with natural gas that gives the latter at least a 500 million dollar discount every year for the next 20 years (baksheesh as they call it in the Middle East and South Asia.) And this is a hell of a lot more than the 200 million dollars which Egypt supposedly receives from America. All in all then, Egypt has agreed to what is clearly a raw deal which put it in a situation where it is now; giving aid to both America and Israel. This is so mind boggling that the Egyptian people who are by nature a generous lot never cease to write letters to the editors of their newspapers asking that the contract with Israel be abrogated whatever it may cost legally to do so.

And now this very important question: Do they have the brains at the Washington Post to assess how much damage will be done to America if everything wished for and fantasized about by the Jewish organizations concerning the relation with Egypt and the Arab world in general came to pass? I do not know the answer to this question but what I find discouraging is that instead of backing off, the folks at the newspaper had an editorial on December 4, 2010 in which they repeated much the same thing as they always said but have escalated to now pretend that they have a mandate to speak in the name of the Egyptian people and groups.

Lunacy has no limit.

Calling The Spade A Spade

It is time to end the charade and call the spade a spade; America is not the mediator that is trusted by both sides in the Middle East conflict or anything like that. The truth is that America and the Palestinians are the two antagonists in the tragedy that is unfolding out there while Israel is only the outpost that is doing the work for America as determined by an odd collection of operators. These are the American Jewish business leaders who own a business in Israel or plan to start one, the land developers who are eying the occupied Palestinian territories they do not have under their control, the politicians in America who are pandering to a fictitious Jewish electorate, the adventurers who seek thrills while protected by an army equipped with advanced American weapons, the religious idiots whose religion is the blood of Arabs and the gore of biblical dimensions, the psychopathic nuts whose mental diseases are regarded as creative genius in the offices of the Washington power establishment, the maladjusted lunatics who are given all the space they want in the American print and audio-visual media -- and so on and so forth. In short, America is not the solution to the Middle East problem; America is the problem that must be fixed before peace can be brought to that part of the world.

It was reported that sometime in the decade of the Nineteen Seventies, Golda Meir then Prime Minister of Israel reminded Henry Kissinger then America's Secretary of State that he was Jewish therefore he must be more sympathetic toward Israel's positions; toward the needs, goals and aspirations of the Jewish state. Kissinger promptly replied that he was first and foremost an American citizen who is in the service of America's foreign policy and this is where his sympathies will go without giving any regard to his religion. As can be deduced from this exchange, it is because Henry Kissinger knew who he was and what his job entailed that he was able to concentrate on his work and pave the way for a peace treaty to be negotiated between Egypt and Israel. Indeed, the treaty was later negotiated under the auspices of President Jimmy Carter; it was signed and ratified shortly thereafter and its implementation was begun during that same Carter Administration. The net result was a treaty that has endured ever since with no sign that it will falter now or any time in the future. In fact, the more that time passes the more solid and durable the treaty appears to be.

A situation like this is almost impossible to duplicate these days because what you have now are people in the Washington Establishment who do not know who they are or what their job allows them to do or even requires them to do. These are people like Eric Cantor, Joe Lieberman, Charles Schumer and others in the American Congress who openly display allegiance to Israel and support measures that hurt America enormously -- measures they may initiate themselves in the hope of giving Israel something, however small or trivial that something may be. And the funny part that is really not so funny is that it can happen as it often does that these people make an effort that ends up missing the mark and manages to net Israel nothing that can be counted as tangible or regarded as useful in any practical sense. Thus, in the end, America gets hurt to give Israel something but Israel gets nothing and so does America for the wasted effort that was made simply because it was possible to make it.

Horrendous as this may be, it is only the beginning of a horrific story because when you have names like Dan Shapiro, Samantha Power, Dennis Ross, Robert Kagan, Elliott Abrams, Tom Malinowski, Robert Satloff and others who are given the task of determining the foreign policy of the United States of America in a direct or indirect way, you know that this country is ill served in the Executive branch as much as it is in the Congress. It becomes obvious to you as it does to everyone that America has a problem you may call an identity crisis. And to believe that it is possible to negotiate peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis under these conditions is to dream not just the impossible dream but dream the absurd dream. And you realize that what must be negotiated, instead, is a peace treaty between the Palestinians and the sort of Americans who can represent America the way that Henry Kissinger did. When this happens, the resulting treaty will be one that acknowledges the reality that Israel is an addendum to this whole affair, and no more important to the scheme of things than the table around which the conferees have gathered to negotiate.

In effect then, America must resolve its own identity crisis before it can tackle the external problems that face it such as the situation in the Middle East and many more situations. This done, America must make itself fit economically as soon as possible because there is a number of factors that require her attention, the most important being that it is a power on the wane -- if not in absolute terms then at least in relative terms. This is the reality because the momentum (the big mo as they call it) is now with the Asian rising powers, the MENA established sovereigns and the Latin American developing countries. Now think about this; if you accept the notion that the nature of human beings makes them respond in such a way as to turn the table on those who mistreated them in the past, you will understand why few people if any will lament when they see America being threatened by economic sanctions the way that America used to threaten the smaller powers. Some people may even delight in seeing America agonize the way that smaller nations were made to agonize when a strong America used to kick them while they were down and had little to protect them. If something like this begins to happen to America and if the situation escalates to an extreme by design or by accident, one of several outcomes will result. Either America will capitulate under the pressure and accept its status as an inferior power or it will lash out at someone and risk triggering the much feared apocalyptic consequences or it will be contained by one or several powers who will endlessly remind it of the old refrain it used to sing to the smaller powers: “We're not taking anything off the table; all options are on the table.” Bitter medicine but a fitting one administered by the powerful on the one that whipped up the bitter taste of humiliation.

Because this scenario is a possibility that America can only ignore at its peril, there is one thing that it must absolutely do and one thing it must absolutely avoid doing. America must make friends it can rely on wherever and whenever it can find them. And it must avoid fantasizing that India and China will fight and destroy each other, then count on this idiocy to save it and sit back to see how it will all turn out. The deplorable reality is that a fantasy to this effect was floated by supposedly intelligent people who described how one of the two Asian powers might want to ally itself with America against the other and work to undermine or destroy it. These people never explained why this would happen but then again, fantasies are never explained. But logic dictates that the two Asian powers might want to get together and turn America into the sick man of Asia the way that the Ottoman Empire became the sick man of the rising powers of Europe during the Nineteenth Century. And this is not all the nefarious possibilities that would await an economically weakened America. In addition to Asia being out of America's reach and influence, the United States will find it difficult to make new friends in Latin America and difficult to keep its old European friends within its sphere of influence. This is because with the passage of time, the interests of the three continents will diverge markedly, even be at odds with each other. They will all compete against each other and do so ferociously to gain access to the same resources and the same markets.

So then, where will America find the friends it can rely on?

The people who will not mind becoming friends with America while everyone else will be deserting it will have to be a special kind of people adhering to a special kind of culture. Do such people exist in real life? Yes they do. The Arabs in particular and the Muslims in general are known to be so friendly and so hospitable, they will consider someone they just met to be a friend and will stick with them through thick and thin to the end for no reason than the fact the new acquaintance was called a guest. And even if bad blood was generated and has existed between the Arabs and someone they have known for some time, the Arabs will forgive that someone and open a new chapter in the relationship with them if the latter will promise never to hurt the Arabs again. In consequence of this and despite all the hurt that America has inflicted on the Arabs in the past, the Arabs will welcome a gesture of goodwill from America, will reciprocate by treating that country as a guest and will agree to become its good friend, something that America needs now and will need even more as time passes.

Well and good but what would constitute an American gesture of goodwill in the eyes of the Arabs and the Muslims?

The one thing that the Arabs will insist on seeing happen is that if and when America decides to go see them, it does so unattached. That is, they do not want to see America go to them with Israel hitched to it like a bride hanging on to the groom's arm. The Arabs will never be able to bring themselves to consider a situation like this a natural phenomenon. On the contrary, they will consider it to be an expression of pornography. Instead of imagining America say to them: “I come to you in peace and friendship,” they will imagine an America on whose forehead is written: “I am a pimp and I bring a whore into your house.” To give a concrete example, if America wants to trade with the Arabs, it should never again ask them to accept a trade deal whereby Arab made goods can enter America duty free if they include an Israeli component. The Jordanians and the Egyptians have accepted such a deal in the past out of deference for what they thought was a friend in the American Administration who promised to work for the conclusion of a free trade agreement between each of them and America. All that was needed, they thought, was time to satisfy a mysterious congressional requirement – perhaps having to do with making political sausage – something they never understood but left it to their presumed friend to deal with.

Instead of a free trade agreement being proposed, however, the Arabs have learned that such a deal may never be realized between them and America because the Congress had mandated the original insane stipulation to begin with as a result of pressure put on it by the Judeo-American argument to the effect that this kind of a deal will foster peace and understanding between the Arabs and the Israelis, and no one in the Congress will want to change that now. But wait a minute; the Israelis already had a peace treaty with the Jordanians and the Egyptians. What else do they want to foster? If they want to trade with the Arabs, they should approach them and negotiate an agreement the way that normal human beings do and not the way that things are done among the pimps and the prostitutes, the madams and the gigolos inside the bordellos of the red districts in some cities or inside the Washington political beltway. To the Arabs, the Judeo-American argument was a phony one as most of these arguments are; it was pornographic in its execution and the only thing it has accomplished was to generate resentment on the part of the two Arab countries that have agreed to trade with Israel in order to trade with America, and generate disgust on the part of the other Arab nations, none of which has jumped on the bandwagon.

Is there a lesson we can drawn from this situation? Yes there is but we must begin with this observation: Any action that the Jewish organizations want a government to take, they want it done in a sly manner for a reason that will be explained in a moment. But to be persuasive and to achieve their goal, those organizations will assign to the proposed action the bogus ability of fostering understanding between the Jews and the rest of the population. If the question relates to the Middle East and they want the American Congress to mandate something, they will say that the proposed action will foster peace between Israel and the Arabs. Big deal, you say; this looks like a harmless little fraud that is neither here nor there. Not so. The fact is that this is a trick often used by the Jewish organizations in the English speaking countries where they ask for money from the local governments to finance activities they say would foster understanding between them and the rest of the population but create resentment and disgust instead.

One such situation has unfolded in Quebec, the French speaking province of the English speaking country of Canada where the Jewish organizations had the mask blown off their faces in a way they never anticipated. It all happened at a time when, short of money, the government of the province cut back on financial aid to students. In spite of this, the English speaking Minister of Education secretly and illegally appropriated millions of dollars to be sent to the Jewish schools under the guise that the move will foster understanding between the Jews and the rest of the population. The students of Quebec learned about this; they rioted and in so doing sent a powerful message to the Minister. They taught him a lesson to the effect that the only understanding he has fostered among them was that the Jews will do anything to suck the blood out of you, and there will always be someone like him who will help them do the sucking. The Minister called back the money, and never again did the Jews try to pull a trick like this in the Canadian province of Quebec. But why did they try to pull one in the first place?

You will find the answer to this question when you read the Jewish history that is written by Jews. Read it carefully and you will find that the authors are fond of situations where the Jews appear to have been considered so special as to be given something that is normally denied to others. Describing this sort of events, the authors who call themselves Jewish historians make it sound like there has always been someone at the pinnacle of power who admitted that the Jews are the chosen children of God and treated them like specials. This is how these authors have participated in the maintenance of the myth and have helped to perpetuate it. And when history is reported in this way, everything that the Jews lobby for is made to look like it was given to the Jews and denied to others because Jews are special. And this effect is what the Jewish organizations seek to achieve when they make the American Congress pass binding and non-binding resolutions that may seem absurd on the surface but have the insidious value of maintaining and promoting the myth.

As to the Arabs, they consider this sort of machination to be quackery and will reject it as soon as they find out what it is. If the trick is pulled with the connivance of the American legislative body or the Administration, the Arabs will get upset at the Americans. If such act is repeated too many times, the result will be that America -- which needs the friendship of the Arabs -- will lose that friendship. When this happens, America will prove once again that it is not the solution to the Middle East problem but the problem that must be fixed before peace can be brought to that part of the world and before help can be extended to save America's economic standing in the world.

The ball is in America's court.