Self Delusion By The Power Of Dogma

Apparently psychiatrists can tell what someone thinks and desires by the dreams that he or she is having in their sleep. This may be true but I believe there is a more accurate method by which to tell what someone thinks and desires; it is to look at the dreams they are having while awake – that is, to look at their daydreams. If it happens that a man in this condition is also expressing himself in writing, he will produce a written record that expresses what goes on inside his heart and soul above and beyond what his head wants us to know. This, in fact, is what happened to a character called Jeffrey T. Kuhner who wrote a column that was published in the Washington Times on October 25, 2011 under the title: “Obama's Arab winter” and the subtitle: “President plays active role in America's decline, Islam's rise.”

If anything, this piece demonstrates what in practical terms the adherence to a set of dogmas can do to someone. You see this when you read the first three sentences of the first paragraph in the column. Here they are: “President Obama is empowering radical Islam across the Arab world. He is presiding over both the American decline and the rapid advance of our mortal jihadist enemies. From the Middle East to North Africa, the Arab Spring has turned into an Islamist winter.” This method of writing is akin to using the dogma as a sledge hammer to clobber the reader at the start of the presentation and thus get his attention early on. It is an approach that is rarely used by seasoned writers because it is too risky. But when they use it, they will make sure their point has come across persuasively before they publish. Well, as a writer, Kuhner seems seasoned enough; he uses the method and yet his column reads like a third rate diatribe that would not make the pride of a schoolboy. It would only persuade the teacher to shake his head in dismay.

You want to know what went on inside the heart and soul of this columnist, and so you keep reading the piece till you encounter this passage: “In Tunisia, an Islamist party … is poised to win … Its goal is to repeal the nation's secular tradition (inherited from the French empire) and erect a Muslim theocracy.” You see that the sentence falls in line with the dogmas articulated in the previous paragraph. You see further that it fails to improve the diatribe, fails to move you, the reader and fails to convince you to embrace any of the dogmas. But you notice that it has a parenthesis inside of which is carried a message that you realize Kuhner never intended to give out. What he wanted to say was simply this: a tradition (inherited from the French empire). But this brings to your mind the following question: If the Tunisian people willingly inherited a tradition from the French and lived with it for several generations, how come they are abandoning it now at the start of a new relationship they wish to forge with the Western world? And in trying to answer the question you are set off on a journey of discovery that the author had no idea was there to be taken.

For him to have neglected to ask that question and look for answers says something important. It says that his approach clearly demonstrates why the adherence to dogma is a toxic state for any mind to be in. In fact, when you look at what comes after the introductory paragraphs, you find it to be a repudiation of the freedoms that the author says he is for and you find it to be an embrace of the autocratic rule that he says he is against. Here is what he complains about in one instance: “Muslim fundamentalists have used street protests against … autocratic regimes … to expand Islamic militancy.” Thus, in his view, to protest in the streets against autocratic regimes is a bad thing. And here is another instance where he also complains: “Next month, it will be Egypt's turn to hold elections. The Muslim Brotherhood is expected to gain the largest number of seats.” Thus, in his view, unless the party you favor is expected to win, elections are a bad thing. Obviously, this man is so wrapped up in his set of dogmas, he cannot see beyond them even though he was handed the necessary information.

You come to understand that this man has been chained to a set of dogmas that so deluded him, he was made to string together a ton of false statements and a mountain of absurd assertions with which he built a monumental diatribe on a thin foundation. And you want to know what would have happened had he asked the right question and wrestled to find the answer instead. Well, he would have realized that the Arabs are following the pattern that was taken by other cultures and civilizations when they reached a level of industrialization that allowed the wholesale shift of people from a subsistence agrarian life to that of an industrial middle class. And if the columnist had the intellect to dig past this point, he would have seen that because the circumstances are now different, the “Arab Spring” is following a path containing a few variances that are peculiar to the history of the region and the times in which we live.

What distinguishes the Arab pattern from say, the European pattern is that the Europeans distanced themselves from the proverbial church as they revolted whereas the Arabs now seek to draw strength from their religion. Why is that? Well, it is easy to see why the Europeans – beginning with the French revolution -- turned against the political authority and the church at one and the same time. It is because the two were in cahoots with each other and they worked together to exploit and suppress the population. Then came the Russian revolution which stood against the Church in a more pronounced way only to be reconciled with it, even embrace it wholeheartedly when the population had it up to here with a Communist regime that turned out to be as authoritarian as the one that preceded it.

But unlike the European Christian church which has a rigid hierarchy that does not allow the individual to interact directly with God, Islam abhors the idea of a religious hierarchy and encourages the individual to deal directly with his God. Thus, the Muslims never quarreled with the Mosque in any serious way, and they always felt comfortable with a political authority they regarded as an extension of the family. In fact, this attitude is so ingrained in the Middle Eastern cultures that the same applies to the Christian populations. But what changed all that and allowed the Arab spring to take hold is something that began with the advent of colonialism to the Arab countries. Colonialism brought to them a taste of the European style tyranny and left them with bad memories after it ended. What made matters worse was that after they got rid of colonialism, the local political leaders who took over began to behave like an internal colonial power. For a while, the Arab populations felt trapped, at a loss and not knowing what to do. Patience being the trait that distinguishes them, they relied on it to endure and survive while waiting for a break. And the break came when industrialization hit their shores. The middle classes revolted in the Arab world the way that they did everywhere else, and the Arab Spring was born at long last.

With this in mind, you can see why it is dangerous for the leaders of the Christian world to express the dogmas expressed by Kuhner in his article. It is that the leaders confirm a narrative which goes like this: The neo-colonial powers have returned and they have cut the Arab world into two parts by establishing the Jewish entity of Israel in the middle of it. They now have a Jewish theocratic state that is propped up by a Christian fundamentalist movement, and they have it for a reason. They are waging a war against us to plunder our resources and they will maintain that war for as long as we have the resources. Be alert because the war will wear an economic mask as long as we remain quiet; but if we rise up and protest the mask will come off to reveal the face of the true dogs of war. Therefore, we must be prepared to fight fire with fire and religion with religion. They have their Jewishness and their Christianity which they never cease to call Judeo-Christian; let us be proud of our Islam and display it whichever way we can. Wear the veil, pray in the street or do anything you can that will defy them.

There is no doubt that the world is being polarized and radicalized on all sides, and the reason is obvious. It is that the Jewish organizations never stop fueling it. They have moles in the Western think tanks who continually incite what Kuhner is inciting in his column. They have speechwriters who write speeches for the American and European leaders. And what the writers do is get paid to spend all their time thinking of ways to drive the wedge between the West and the Arabs to maintain the war between the two. They look for the most vexing words and the worst of expressions to insert in the speeches of the American and European leaders who then jump in front of the cameras and blurt things considered incendiary in the Arab world and beyond it, the Muslim world. With this happening under the radar, so to speak, the Western leaders unwittingly maintain a state of undeclared war against the Arabs by constantly reminding their youngsters of this message: You are my mortal jihadist enemy and I shall come after you when I will be ready.

What is surprising about this is that the mouthpieces which the Jewish organizations employ to go around and create all that mischief are of an IQ which does not exceed that of Kuhner. And they all have but one and simple method by which they move the politicians and the armies of the West to basically commit suicide fighting the Arab and Muslim kids who seem to always find a way to outwit them. The method of the mouthpieces is to cry out that the enemy is on the march and that he has weapons by which he will be able to mass destroy us. And they go on to say, we must preempt that enemy before he gets too far ahead or if we fail, it will be the end of us as we know us to be. The question for us at this point is therefore an existential one for, it comes down to this: to be or never to be on top of the heap once again may be our lost dream.

Finally, to give credit where credit is due, I must say that Jeffrey Kuhner found a novel way by which to express that message. It comes in the last paragraph of his piece. This is how he puts it: “Like emperors in the final days of Rome, our leaders can pretend that the barbarians pose no imminent threat. Everyone knows, however, that … The Islamists are rising, threatening freedom wherever they tread.” It is too bad for him, however, that he neglected to insert a caveat in there because without one, he created a weakness that ends up destroying his metaphor. The fact is that Rome was destroyed more by the senility of its rulers than by the barbarians at the gate.

In a similar fashion, America which he regards as representing the Western world, must worry more about the senility of its own leaders than some Arab kids who are delighted to have found a big boy called Uncle Sam willing to play cops and robbers with them. They kick him in the ass, go hide and taunt him to seek them. And this is happening because unlike the Roman senate where the horses were allowed to vote, America has a congress where the jackasses are allowed to vote. And to keep in line both the ass of the uncle and the jackasses of the congress there are the assholes of the Jewish think tanks and their obedient media.

Kuhner is one of those assholes who must nevertheless feel like asinine being surrounded by all these asses, including his company of himself.

Join Them To Bind And Fleece Them

A famous saying in the English language goes this way: “If you cannot beat them, join them.” But the infamous Elliott Abrams of the Jewish lobby in America has invented a different version of the saying. It goes this way: “If you cannot beat them, join them to control them and fleece them.” This is what you see him advocate when you read the blog on the internet site of the Council on Foreign Relations, a blog he published under the title: “FTAs for Tunisia and Egypt” on October 17, 2011. Elliott Abrams did not become infamous now or because he distorted an English saying; he has been infamous ever since he entered public life which suggests that he came into this life already equipped with the qualities of infamy.

To understand what he is up to now we need to know something about FTA. This descriptor stands for Free Trade Agreement which is a compact that the nations of the world enter into either on a bilateral basis or a multilateral one. For example, the American Congress recently ratified and the President signed a bilateral Free Trade Agreement that was negotiated years ago with each of South Korea, Colombia and Panama. This is different from the multilateral agreement which regulates trade between the North American nations of the United States, Canada and Mexico, one that has been in force for several decades now. This compact is known by the acronym NAFTA which stands for North American Free Trade Agreement.

The essence of these agreements is that the signatories commit themselves to lowering or eliminating the custom duties they normally impose on the goods and/or services of each other while maintaining them on everyone else. The intent is to increase trade between the signatories as a way to treat each other like a “Most Favored Nation” or better. This is an American expression that is rarely used today but one that was used frequently in the past to designate the nations that America considered friendly and wished to reward. America did so by lowering the duties on their products without asking for reciprocity in most of the instances. It could be this generous because it was the acknowledged economic ocean of the world that commanded a big chunk of the international trade at a time when everyone else looked like a small creek seeking to unload their products on America's shores in exchange for the once mighty dollar.

Things have changed since then in the sense that where America used to be the creditor nation of the world, it is now the most indebted nation, a situation that logic says must have resulted from the generous policies that the country has pursued in the past. The immediate consequence of these policies has been that America stacked up trade deficits as large as the ocean and found itself unable to continue buying from foreigners without selling enough to them to pay for what it buys. Thus, there was the need to throw away the old notion of most favored nation and replace it with that of the free trade agreement whose intent is to “even out the playing field” between the American producers of goods and services and their foreign competitors.

While America has embraced the new policy of negotiating FTAs, the other nations of the world are doing the same thing but with a caveat in some cases. Nations in regions that are defined by geography such as Europe, Africa, Latin America, the Arab group and Asia have negotiated bilateral and multilateral agreements with one another and they continue to do so. Some even reach out to more distant nations and groupings to negotiate agreements with them too. But the level of enthusiasm to enter into free trade with other nations has always depended on the kind of economy that a nation has and the level of development its economy has reached. Therefore, while the appeal of free trade has remained universal, the level of enthusiasm for it is not always evenly shared by everyone.

At first, Egypt was reluctant to get into a trade agreement with other nations because of a number of reasons, some of which were economic and others political. Eventually, the country came around to opening its economy to the rest of the world, and slowly but surely the pendulum started to swing to the other side. By the time the twenty first century had rolled, the country was becoming promiscuous, so to speak, at signing free trade agreements left and right, near and far. The end result has been that Egypt now has FTAs with virtually everyone in the world except America with which it has a contrived monstrous creature instead. It is another one of those freakish distortions that only the American Congress is capable of creating after drinking a dose of the AIPAC Kool Aid.

That freakish distortion is called QIZ which stands for Qualified Industrial Zone. The story here began long ago when America set up a free trade agreement between it and Israel. What happened at the time was that Israel, which produces virtually nothing -- let alone produce what the Americans would want to buy -- sold to America goods and services that were produced in Europe and Asia by enterprises that were owned and/or operated by Jews and sometimes by non-Jews as well. To qualify for entry into America duty free, these products had to have a 35% component made in Israel. But the enterprises in Israel did not have the wherewithal to make finished products or components for them in the quantities and the variety that were called for in America. They only produced packaging, printed material and accessories that did not exceed in value the 5% level of the cost. And so, to comply with the terms of the free trade agreement with America, the Israeli enterprises were paid – at least on paper – the full 35% that was required.

The net effect of this diabolic scheme has been that under the umbrella of the free trade agreement negotiated with Israel, America has for several decades now been receiving goods and services produced in Europe and Asia duty free where they would normally have been subjected to a duty that ranges anywhere between 10% and 40% of the cost. And the result has been that in a game which is essentially a zero-sum game, America loses in a big way so that Israel may gain. And this makes it so that Europe and Asia also gain at the expense of America.

Now, given that a peace treaty was in effect between Egypt and Israel, the AIPAC people in America worked with the Israelis to setup a similar scheme that would drag Egypt into it. They saw the need to do this because the textile industry was expanding in Egypt at the time; and some of the production was being exported to America already. Also, the Israelis themselves were selling textile in America but the competition from Asia was killing them and they were told point blank by big stores such as Macy's and Bloomingdale's to set up factories in Egypt or lose their share of the American market. The trouble, however, was that the Egyptians who already enjoyed the status of most favored nation with America, and were negotiating a full fledged free trade agreement, would not agree to the Israel/AIPAC scheme. And the matter stood there for a while.

Then came the peace treaty between the Jordanians and the Israelis where the latter got the idea of setting up the scheme with the Jordanians. This time, they took another tack to avoid repeating the fiasco they had with the Egyptians. Not to be seen doing the work themselves, they approached the Jordanian business people who would gain the most from such a setup; and they showed them the way to the Washington maze by which to lobby the American Congress. And surprise, surprise, it did not take long to obtain the Congressional approval to setup a number of Qualified Industrial Zones in Jordan where goods would be manufactured for export to America duty free. The goods had to contain a 10% or so component made in Israel or in the occupied Palestinian territories.

A few years passed and several events converged to force the Egyptians into a similar QIZ scheme with America and Israel. What happened was that first, a number of new nations started to industrialize; and in the race to the bottom competed to win a share of the textile market by lowering their prices. The fight was so ferocious that even the Egyptians who have enormous advantages in the sector felt jostled and pushed into a corner. Second, a new world trade agreement that would substantially drop the tariff on textiles was coming into effect thus threatened to undo the advantage of most favored status that Egypt had with America. Third, the Americans in charge of the preliminary FTA negotiations with Egypt started to throw the monkey wrench into the negotiations in a naked attempt to force the Egyptians to take the QIZ route and thus benefit Israel in the process. Having no other choice, the Egyptians studied the Jordanian experience, learned from it and negotiated the best QIZ deal they could.

The world then changed again and the Egyptians saw that they can be better off without the QIZ because opportunities were opening to them like never before. Thanks to globalization, they began to realize that they will do better not only in the matter of exporting textile but in all the manufacturing and service sectors of their industries. As to the Americans, they looked at the multitude of FTAs that Egypt has with the rest of the world, and they too came to that same conclusion. Thus, to avoid being left out of a lucrative market in the making, they began to revive the old idea of negotiating an FTA with Egypt. What prompted them to see the new reality were several factors. First, there is the demographic makeup of the Egyptian population which is large, young and moving into the middle class. Second, there is the fact that Egypt is located at the crossroads of three continents: Europe, Africa and Asia to where the action is migrating. Third, there is the center of economic gravity that is shifting from the North Atlantic to Central Asia, a location that is closer to where Egypt is situated. Fourth, all of this is happening at a time when Egypt is fast becoming a factory for the region.

The Americans began to understand this and so did Elliott Abrams. But being someone who cannot stop wallowing in the pool of his intellectual waste, he remains deep in it and refuses to come out. Thus, the prudent thing for everyone to do is to read his blog with this reality in mind. Indeed, after a short introduction, he gets into the sort of history which he regularly fabricates, spins and blends to bake what you might call the Elliott Abrams shit pie, something a hungry dog would not have for breakfast. And this is what he feeds to the innocent readers who suspect nothing about him but read him as if he were a normal human creature.

Watch him belabor his latest version of history in the last two paragraphs of the blog. He concocts in them a fictitious narrative without once mentioning Israel knowing full well that America never negotiates Middle Eastern matters without “consulting” with Israel and working things to benefit that foreign country at its own expense if need be. And he chooses to keep quiet about Israel to avoid revealing that FTA negotiations between Egypt and America were underway in earnest at one time but that AIPAC pressured the Americans to throw the monkey wrench into the talks as a way to force Egypt to take the infamous QIZ deal instead.

As you read those two paragraphs, you become dizzy by the tricks he employs to swing you from one idea to its opposite and back again. Look at the first of the two paragraphs and remove the fillings you encounter in it. When you do this, you find that it reads as follows: “In 2005 the United States considered an FTA with Egypt … But there was little enthusiasm among [American] trade officials anyway … There was a widespread view … that Mubarak did not really want an FTA … and that is what we did not wish to give him.” Abrams wrote the blog in this dizzying Judeo-Yiddish style to avoid saying that Egypt and America wanted an FTA between them; that Egypt wanted to have it with America only but that AIPAC and the Jewish lobby – which includes Abrams -- wanted to bring Israel into it. Why telling the truth in this instance would have bothered Abrams should not be a mystery to anyone.

And he goes on to hit you with the next paragraph which is the last of his blog. Here too, you can strip the fillings and read the passage as follows: “Mubarak would not have wanted an FTA, it was argued, because an FTA creates ... pressure for a freer economy, the rule of law, more open markets and less corruption. This is precisely why negotiating FTAs should begin now ... There will be many pressures to maintain corrupt, anti-market practices ... An FTA will push in the other direction ... There are few things we can do to nudge both countries in a positive direction that would have greater effect than FTAs...” Well, instead of allowing this thing to make us sick, let us have fun parsing it instead.

He makes those points because he says “it was argued” but he does not specifically say who it was that made the arguments. And so we take the trouble of assuming that it was him and the other AIPAC characters. This is not what he wants you to believe, however, because he wants to make it look like it was a genuine American decision. And this is what prompts you to ask: If an FTA is “precisely” what is needed to fix the corrupt Egyptians and to lead them onto the righteous path of a Bernie Madoff, a Conrad Black or the characters at Enron, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, why did the Americans not negotiate one when they had the opportunity instead of throwing the monkey wrench into the talks as they did?

In the absence of an answer, you are forced to conclude that Abrams must have something else in mind. It must be that he is predicting the QIZ is about to die a natural death. He and AIPAC are therefore looking for a way to use America's desire to benefit from what Egypt is becoming to benefit Israel instead knowing that this can only happen at the expense of the American people, many of whom are unemployed and waiting desperately for a break in their luck. But watch Abrams and AIPAC betray them, and do so in the most treasonous of ways – stealthily and with a fake smile on their faces.

To succeed in his new scheme, he must first devise a system by which the Jewish organizations will be able to control the situation after the FTAs are concluded. To this end, he believes that it would be better for Israel if America negotiated two separate bilateral FTAs; one between America and Egypt, and one between America and Tunisia -- rather than negotiate a multilateral FTA that would combine all three nations on the NAFTA model. And his new scheme, my friend, is a variation on an old concept whose modern incarnation goes like this: divide, bind, rule, exploit, fleece and then cut and run.

Well, if you want to know what this is all about; it is another one of those Elliott Abrams shit pies from which no one sane should take a bite, and certainly not wash it down with the AIPAC Kool Aid. Don't even try to smell the thing because it stinks like hell and you could seriously damage your nostrils. Just throw it in the garbage and say to yourself never again.

The Fierce Battle Between Good And Evil

This has been a week of eventful mornings in this part of the globe brought about by events that were unfolding at about midday in the Middle East. I woke up this morning to the news that the regime in Libya had come to an end as I did two days ago to the news that an exchange of prisoners was underway between Palestine and Israel. Today, I said to myself that the people of Libya got what they wanted after four decades of harsh rule whereas two days ago I could only wonder when the people of Palestine will be rid of a savage military occupation that has lasted more than six decades already.

Indeed, I sat in front of the television set on the morning of October 18, 2011 to watch the exchange of prisoners unfold between Palestine and Israel. It was a magnificent moment seeing these people go home and be greeted by their loved ones with hugs and kisses though we did not get to hear what they were saying to each other as there was no audio. But there was a consolation in this regard because we heard a speech and we were treated to an interview, each of which made the moment even more magnificent. What we heard was a speech of hope and renewal given by Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority. And we watched an interview conducted with Gilad Shalit, the Israeli prisoner who was by then on his way home.

Shalit was asked if he would work to have the Palestinian prisoners who are still in Israeli jails released and he said he would do so because he wanted to see them go home to their loved ones and wanted to see peace come to the two peoples. These words brought to mind the views I heard a few days earlier and those I read on the subject, all of which contrasted sharply with what Shalit was saying. They were views expressed by North American commentators who made themselves sound like they were on the side of the Israelis but were saying things that went contrary to the sentiments expressed by Shalit; and went contrary to the views expressed by the overwhelming majority of the Israeli people as shown in the poles that were conducted in Israel a day or two earlier.

So I asked myself why the difference in the points of view? And before I could begin to search for an answer, my memory brought back the old quarrels we used to see erupt every so often between the Jews who lived in Israel and those who called themselves Jews but lived outside of Israel, mostly in North America. On the whole, the first group of people were a more dovish lot as they expressed a willingness to seek an accommodation with their neighbors while the second – who were frequently joined by non-Jewish voices -- were seeing the struggle in the Middle East as a fight to the death between good and evil. And these people consistently adopted a hawkish stance that unsettled the Israeli Jews. Thus, to express anger and dissatisfaction at the North Americans who took liberty to speak in their name, the Jews of Israel reminded them of the fact that they were the ones who must live with the Arabs or die fighting them. And the Israelis stressed this point as they complained bitterly that the North Americans – be they Jewish or otherwise – attached a low value to their lives simply because they supported them financially. And they resented this situation very deeply.

However, I did not think that Shalit was processing thoughts as complex as these during the interview on the day of his release. What he said was more in line with the sentiments I heard expressed many times before by soldiers who fought each other like mortal enemies but then saluted one another respectfully at the end of the war. Some of these warriors even praised the ones they fought against in recognition of the fact that they must have had a reason as good as theirs to fight as hard as they did for their own cause. Like these soldiers – be they Germans, Americans or Japanese -- and contrary to the views of the armchair warriors who sit in the fantasy land of North American punditry, Shalit did not see himself as the good that was fighting evil; nor did he see the Palestinians as the evil that was fighting the Israeli occupation.

Instead, Shalit saw himself as a soldier in a tank who fought against a people that had nothing but bare hands with which to defend themselves and defend their loved ones. He saw himself as a soldier in an army that is equipped to the teeth with the most lethal weapons produced by the American military-industrial complex, an army that is fighting against a disarmed people who are kept in a state of total helplessness. He may not have thought of the methods by which any of this was made possible but he will -- without a doubt -- learn about them in due course. Eventually, he will come to realize that what happened to him has happened because of several factors that came together. Among these are circumstances that were brought about by the weight of the local politics which is played out in America. They are the weight of the international diplomacy that is being conducted by America in favor of Israel. They are the weight of the billions that America borrows to stay afloat and do mischief around the word mostly for the benefit of Israel. And they are the weight of the trickery that is imposed on America by a Jewish lobby that tells it what to do in every situation. Eventually, Shalit will come to realize that as a nation, Palestine was rendered helpless in the same way that he was when he stood outside the tank without a weapon in his hand to defend himself.

During the interview, Shalit seemed to be aware that more than a thousand Palestinian prisoners were released in exchange for his release and that thousands more remained in Israeli jails. And he must have felt that if anything, these numbers alone expressed with some eloquence the uneven fight that is waged by the two sides. And he must have been aware that the number of Palestinian civilians killed by the Israeli army and by the settlers as opposed to the number of Israelis killed by Palestinians trying to defend themselves was skewed to that same degree. For these reasons, he could not have entertained the thought that he was on the side of the good fighting a side that is evil. It is just that evil is never this weak.

On my part, these thoughts made me wonder as to the source of the “good versus evil” image that has been touted for decades; and I wondered why that image was painted in the first place. But I did not have to go too far to search for an answer as it was given five days earlier in an editorial that was published on October 13, 2011 in the Wall Street Journal under the title: “Israel's Unequal Exchange” and the subtitle: “The line between moral values and moral hazard can be thin.” Basically, the editorial writers argue that the exchange of prisoners will cause the war to continue, and they ended the presentation this way: “Sooner or later, Israel will learn the name of its next Gilad Shalit. Sooner or later, too, it will learn that the better course is to give its enemies reasons to think twice before taking hostages in the first place.” And I thought to myself, there is only one reason why someone would write words like these; it is that they see the war as being their own but that the dovish Israelis were frustrating them by refusing to fight to the death. And there is no doubt in my mind that the characters at the Journal think of themselves as representing a good that is locked in a fight against the Palestinians who, in their eyes, represent evil. And to this, I can only shout: What a bunch of immature adolescent bastards!

And there is more because when you read the editorial and you encounter the words: “think twice” at the end of it, you ask: Where the hell did the brains of these people wander while they wrote the sentences that preceded those two words? In fact, to lead up to the words, the writers crafted a number of paragraphs by which they gave an account of the agony that the Palestinians and the Israelis must have gone through over a period of five years as they negotiated the latest exchange of prisoners. Not only that but the editorial even mentions the negotiations that took place on previous occasions to exchange other prisoners. And despite knowing all of this, the Journal characters say that the last agreement was arrived at by negotiators who thought about the matter only once and not twice. You can only conclude from this that the people at the Journal are so wrapped in the cocoon of their fantasy, they cannot see what is outside of it or even see what is inside of it. They are as good as blind.

Here is a sample of what the editorial says in the paragraphs that precede the two infamous words: “Since 1982, it [Israel] has released thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners in exchange for a handful of Israeli soldiers and civilians … The Jewish state's repeated willingness to pay an exorbitant price for its citizens … The negotiations to return Sgt. Shalit dragged on as long as they did largely because Hamas had reason to believe it could drive the hardest possible bargain.” Given all this, there should be no doubt in the mind of anyone that the writers at the Journal find themselves in the position of having to write editorials not because they missed their calling and were trapped in it but because they were planted in these positions to do the work of the devil. These people are the chosen children of Satan, and they are there to do his work.

You get a sense of that when you see what these people seek to achieve in writing an editorial such as that. What emerges from it is the picture they maintain in their heads of the good versus evil fight they say must be fought to the death. To this end, here is how they describe the Palestinians: “...many of them serving life sentences for murder...” And so you ask: What about the thousands of Palestinians – most of whom are women and children – who are murdered by the Israeli army as they sleep in the bedrooms? These are not accidental murders; they are murders committed with American made precision weapons that specifically target the children and their mothers to inflict maximum pain on the enemy in accordance with instructions given to the Hebrews not once or twice but everywhere – and I mean absolutely everywhere -- in the Old Testament. And these are instructions that the leaders of Israel have repeatedly said they intend to follow to the letter and not deviate from them a fraction of a degree. These people make the late Gadhafi look like a saint.

Furthermore, to describe the unequal exchange in the number of prisoners between the Palestinians and the Israelis, the Journal editorial writers say this about Israel's Jewish values: “...a testament to its national and religious values, which stress the obligation to redeem captives.” And so you ask: What about the values of Hamas which – in order to redeem its own prisoners – captured Shalit and paid the price of seeing an Israeli savage attack on them that killed a thousand or more innocent people? This was not an accidental attack, it came in accordance with the Jewish equation which says an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The exception here is that when the balance of power is unequal as it is between the American equipped Israeli army and the bare handed Palestinians, the equation becomes a thousand eyes for an eye and a thousand teeth for a tooth. Yes, Judaism is evolving but instead of mellowing, it is becoming more savage than even the horror stories of the Old Testament – all of which makes the late Gadhafi look like a saint.

As to those in North America who impersonate the Jews by writing pro-Jewish shoddy editorials in prestigious rags, the natural optimists among us ask if there isn't something about them that can be considered positive; perhaps a place where the effort to reform them can begin and thus render them less destructive to the human race. Ironically, we find that despite their mental challenges, these people display an extraordinary ability in one area of human endeavor. It is the ability -- as evil as they are -- to portray themselves as the good that is fighting evil, a trick they employ to recruit the innocent and get them to fight on their side against the good which they portray as evil.

Yes, these people possess an ability to invert reality in a way that is mind boggling. They used this ability to make the Palestinians and the Israelis go at each other as if locked in a fight to the death. But I believe that if harnessed properly and used wisely, that ability can be made to work for the good of mankind. However, to make these people see the benefit in doing the opposite of what they have been doing for ages is a problem I do not yet know how to solve. For this reason, I leave the matter for others to think about and search for answers. In the meantime, I am going fishing -- at least as far as this matter is concerned.

Jewish Intentions Paving The Way To Hell

The future begins now and in this future some things are being reversed from where they have been so far. One area where the reversal is pronounced and where it carries consequences that can become dangerous is the matter of the relationships that America has forged and continues to forge with the rest of the world. Most important among these is the relationship that the superpower maintains with the United Nations, one that the American Congress has worked mindlessly to alter. Now seen as an institution so dysfunctional it can do nothing that is good, the Congress is on its way to do more than alter the relationship with the United Nations, it is on its way to shatter it completely.

Owned and operated by the Jewish organizations known collectively as the Jewish lobby, the infamous Congress has refashioned itself and continues to do so both at the domestic level and in the area of international diplomacy to better channel America's energies and put them in the service of Israel and Israel alone. To this end, the Congress has gridlocked itself domestically to be free from having to serve the American people. As to its foreign duties, it has cleared itself of the commitments that relate to Israeli matters and has relegated these to the care of the Jewish organizations. The net result is that the sickly institution now stands as the private property of AIPAC which is the Jewish lobby that serves but one and only master, Israel.

What is astonishing in this sordid saga is the ease with which a small and well organized group was able to come from the old world as did the leaders of the Jewish organizations and take control of America in just a few decades. The group is sometimes referred to as World Jewry; and there is no doubt that it had acquired enormous skills and had accumulated vast and varied experiences throughout the World and through the centuries before it was able to do what it did in America. The people of the group inherited a system that was fashioned into a potent tool by which they accomplished a great deal for themselves in many places around the globe. But then -- as naturally as these things always go -- the people became too greedy; they went too far demanding and receiving what they wanted and they lost it all in a scenario that repeated itself through time. It happened to them everywhere in the old world, and this prompted them to head to the new one for what they hoped will be a new beginning.

However, there are powerful signs that the pattern is again repeating itself in America. But we must understand that history is doing things in a slightly different way because when history repeats itself, it does it in ways that are similar in some respects and different other respects to take into account the local variations. To see what is happening in America today, it is useful to look at the antics of a notorious member of the House of Representatives. Her name is Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a naturalized American of Cuban origin who was born to a Jewish mother that converted to Catholicism. You understand the significance of this personal history when you learn that there was a time when the converts out of Judaism were considered to be self-hating Jews and treated by mainstream Judaism as traitors that deserve nothing but contempt -- and so were their descendents.

While the converts themselves did not suffer much from the bad treatment they received as they were expecting it and had prepared mentally for it, the offsprings suffered a great deal by the shame and the guilt they were made to feel. More than that, the Jewish organizations exploited the mental condition of these people by amplifying their shame and their guilt then counseling them to atone for the sins of their parents by working for the Jewish causes and for Israel. The result has been that some of these people did so with a fanatic devotion that extended well into the realm of insanity. And where these people found themselves in a position to give to the Jewish organizations and to Israel what belongs to a third party, they gave as if the world belonged to the Jews and to Israel only. This is where Ileana Ros-Lehtinen stands today as she works exclusively to transfer to Israel and to the Jews what belongs to America. She is doing this as if the American people did not count or did not exist at all because the reality that lives in her head is that no one counts or deserves to exist but Israel and the Jews. Repeatedly reproached for what she is doing, she learned only lately to rationalize her behavior by saying that what is good for Israel is also good for America. And she gives no hint that she is prepared to deviate if only a fraction of an angle from where she was programmed to go.

As insane as this woman is, she finds herself in a position to do what she does with ease, with impunity and with authority because she chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, an achievement that is a tribute to the skills acquired by the Jewish organizations that put her there. It is that these people work quietly and do so for however long it takes them to put the right individual in the right place so that when the time comes, he or she will find themselves in a position to execute the instructions they receive to the smallest meticulous detail, and pull the coups they were trained to pull with perfect accuracy. The stark example is Ileana Ros-Lehtinen who is placed where she can do the most good for Israel and for the Jewish causes by inflicting the most damage to the interests of the American people.

What is at stake now is that the world outside of America is questioning the activities of the Jews who are looting all that they can in the Middle East with the view of creating a Jewish empire that will extend from the Nile to the Euphrates. World Jewry embarked on this journey by asking for the creation of a small Jewish enclave in Palestine where a Jew from anywhere in the world could escape discrimination and go live there like a Jew. The leaders of the movement made this seemingly innocuous request to the great powers of the day more than a century ago but things did not come together until the events of the Second World War opened the door for the immigration of Jews into Palestine. But while the doors were flung open, the eyes were shut to the fact that the immigration was illegal and that it had nefarious consequences on the local population. And the reality has been that ever since that time, the leaders of Israel have skillfully coordinated their actions with those of the Jewish organizations -- first in Europe and then in America -- to keep expanding Israel toward the creation of the Jewish empire they still dream about.

But where the Jews were able to count on the sympathy of people everywhere because of what happened to them during the Great War, their organizations abused that sympathy to such an extent that the world began to see they were not the saints they portrayed themselves to be but were the devil incarnate. The people of the world began to see this clearly when they realized that the Jewish leaders will think of something they wish to accomplish later then start to put the groundwork for it now by digging traps and planting snarls where the innocent are caught and skinned alive – which is what happened to the people of Palestine. And the more that the world came to see this truth; the more it curtailed the ability of Israel and the Jewish organizations from continuing to expand the frontiers of Israel. Thus, despite the fanatic effort of characters like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the demonic project is becoming more and more difficult to realize.

And the world gradually began to distance itself from Israel, a reality that was reflected at the United Nations. This left the Jewish leaders with no choice but to concentrate their effort on keeping America from seeing what the world sees, a feat they accomplished by doing four separations. First, they separated America from the world by pitting the country against the United Nations. Second, they separated the American government from its people by gridlocking the affairs of the nation and devoting its energies to serve Israel. Third, they separated the branches of the American government from each other by pitting the Congress against the White House. Fourth, they separated the components of governance in the nation by pitting one party against the other in a system that is made of two parties.

And yet, the whole thing is constructed in such a way that the separations are made to vanish if and when things work out in favor of Israel. For example, the UN becomes a lovely, sweet and kissable creature when it rules in favor of Israel or against its enemies. No checks or balances are called for in America's governing circles when it comes to serving the interests of Israel because the opinions never diverge as to the absolute supremacy of the rights of Israel over the rights of America or any other country. The Congress and the White House rarely quarrel about doing what is good for Israel even if they must do what is bad for America in the process. And the votes in the Congress in favor of Israel are never gridlocked but always bipartisan and almost always unanimous. What more would Israel want from a superpower that has become its only backer in a world that is increasingly becoming disgusted with them both?

Well, what Israel wants is for the situation to remain as it is if not intensify America's devotion toward Israel and the Jewish causes. But this is not happening because a crack is beginning to open between the Jewish organizations and the Executive branch of the US government where the latter is sensing that the back of the American camel is starting to creak. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that one additional Jewish straw could break the camel's back, a realization that is forcing the Executive branch to look for ways that will save the situation and save America. What happened that forced this reality to come to the fore was that the Palestinians realized it was futile to try and get the Israelis to abandon the dream of an Israel that extends from the Nile to the Euphrates; and they realized at the same time that America was as useless a mediator as a urinal can be expected to mediate between a pisser and the wide world outside the can. And this is when the Palestinians dumped America from their calculations and sought relief at the United Nations.

This is where Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and her sidekicks were called upon to play their part. And this is where the full majesty of the Jewish method – fine tuned and perfected as it was over the centuries – put on a magnificent demonstration in full flight. It is that the Congressional characters who are under her influence were commanded to gang up and halt the money that was pledged to help the Palestinian Authority (PA) alleviate the pain inflicted on its people by a savage Jewish occupation that has lasted several generations already. The characters under the Ros-Lehtinen influence began their satanic work by putting a hold on the transfer of the money -- something they can do under the guise of seeking clarifications even though the Congress had already appropriated the money for the purpose.

As to the clarifications they are still seeking; they want to know more about the efforts of the PA at the United Nations to obtain recognition. They want information concerning the agreement that was reached between the PA and Hamas to reunite the Palestinian people in the West Bank of the Jordan River and the Gaza Strip. And they want an explanation as to why the PA refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state even though they were told time and again that such recognition would give the Israelis the green light to do what they always said they wanted to do which is to have someone's permission to throw out of Israel the Christians and the Muslims who have lived there since the beginning of time and stayed put when the Jews slaughtered their loved ones. But the PA was not going to be the one to give Israel that permission.

What is happening now is that the activities of the insane woman at the Congress and her army of politico-deviant characters have degenerated into the most pornographic spectacle the world has ever seen. It is a spectacle that a topnotch team of devils could not have written the script for, a script that would have brought together snakes, skunks, hyenas and rats to institute a federation that would show the world how a republic is supposed to function. It would not have been the exceptional envy of mankind and a great model for everyone to follow but a trophy perched on a pedestal at the inner sanctum of Hell itself reflecting the sense of Jewish rule of law and pride in its democratic governance.

So now you want to know how the script unfolds. Okay; here it is: The American Administration goes on all fours and begs the Israelis to force the American Congress to let American money go to Palestine. This is so sick and so demeaning; it is like begging your wife's sex master to force her to kiss you this one time. It is like begging your husband's mistress to force him to caress you this one time. It is a puke provoking posture like no self respecting organism – human or animal -- can stomach. It is unbelievable but it is true! This is what America has become under Jewish rule. It is a system of governance by which America is decreed with simple Jewish edicts to send its own children to die in foreign lands to impose that same sickly system on the people over there or kill them if they reject it. It is nightmarish and it is happening in broad daylight.

And to think that the same cycle began and ran some distance each time that the Jewish leaders whispered in the ear of someone: “You're okay and we're okay because we share the same values, and everyone else is different. Listen to what we say because we carry an important message.” The Spaniards listened till they discovered what the Jews wanted and they threw them out. The Central Europeans then listened till they discovered what the Jewish leaders were after and they kicked them out. The Russians then listened till they found out what the Jewish organizations were seeking and they threw them out. Then came the French, the Turks, the Indians, the Latin Americans and the Africans; and they all treated the Jews in that same way as soon as they realized that the whisperers were not harboring good intentions which may or may not lead to hell; they were powered by horror-like intentions that were designed to take you to Hell and lock you there for all of eternity.

When the world repudiated the Jewish leaders, the latter went to the politicians in America and said to them: “You're okay and we're okay because we share the same values, and everyone else is different. Listen to what we say because we carry an important message.” And one after the other, the American politicians said: “I like what I hear; tell me more.” And the Jew said: “Those who practice the oldest profession make a lot of money. It stands to reason that the oldest democracy should practice the oldest profession to raise a lot of money for the political campaigns.” And the American politicians cried out in jubilation: “What insight! What magnificent insight! To marry the oldest democracy with the oldest profession and create the biggest bordello and make it the new American Congress. Why didn't I think of that? No wonder you're the chosen and we're only the exceptional. So tell me, what do I have to do to become a political prostitute, and how much money can you bundle for me during the upcoming election, you sweet son of a glorious pimp?”

And this is the point at which the American politician is told he must not allow daylight to show between America and Israel; and told to put an infinite distance between America and the rest of the world. In return, he is promised the moon but all he gets in the end is a moon rock in the head because there isn't a Jew that can deliver a single vote or a single dollar that someone else cannot deliver faster, deliver it with certainty and do so while maintaining self-respect.

Peril In Mixing Metaphors That Clash

For reasons I barely understand, the mixing of metaphors is avoided in the English language more than any other language I am familiar with. But the mixing is done anyway even in English, and when it is done well, it can bring joy to the author and be informative as well as entertaining to the reader. Where things can go wrong, however, is when the metaphors which are used in the mix clash with each other rather than blend together; and this may be the reason why the practice is avoided in the first place. One such clash happened to Bret Stephens, a columnist with the Wall Street Journal who published a piece on October 11, 2011 under the title: “Egypt's Silhouette of Fire” and the subtitle: “Sectarian violence flares on the streets of Cairo.”

To be fair to Stephens, he did not create the situations that led him to do the wrong kind of mixing; they were there and he inherited them. Of course, he should have tried to fully internalize them before using them but he did not and the column went the way that it did. One of the metaphors he uses describes Egypt as a quiet place that nevertheless contains a few danger zones. The other metaphor describes Egypt as an apocalyptic hell that is ready to explode if it has not done so already. And this would be in line with the philosophy of ambiguity that the Jewish leaders have adopted a long time ago in their quest to have it both ways all the time. Thus, it was necessary for the young columnist to remain within the confines of a method that the Jewish propaganda machine had put together and began to use before his time.

What happened then was that the Jewish machine had secured a full and absolute monopoly on the media megaphones both in the print world and the audio-visuals. And there was no way for people like yours truly to push back as we were all blacklisted, a situation that lasted until the internet came along and began to change things. In the meantime, the Jewish media had a free hand to create exaggerated narratives for their side of the story; to create false narratives they attributed to the Arab side of the story and to create fantastic narratives they told the audience were the result of the dialogues they were having with the Arabs. But the whole thing was pure fiction from A to Z, and those of us who knew better were not allowed to communicate this reality to a public that didn't know we existed. And this was an experience that lasted forty years inside the intellectual toilet bowl that is the pride of Jewish democracy.

But where did the fiction come from? Well, the prototypes most favored by the Jewish media characters come out of their insatiable desire to believe that the people of world have nothing better to do than think of the Jews and of Israel all day long. They fantasize that the angels among these people think of the Jews as being models of perfection while the anti-Semites among them think of the Jews and Israel as being models of evil, a situation that results in everyone on earth being emotionally connected to the Jews by love or by hate. They further fantasize that the angels among these people seek ways to remain on the good side of the Jews by trying to please them at every turn while the anti-Semites seek ways to annihilate Israel and the Jews at every moment of their waking hours – and maybe during their sleep too.

An example of this sort of fiction and of thinking is encountered in the first paragraph of the Stephens column where he reports the following: “In the wake of Sunday's clashes … Egyptian Prime Minister ... wasted no time hinting at the culprit. 'What's happening is not sectarian tension,' he said. 'there are hidden hands involved and we will not leave them.'” This done, the writer hastens to explain the thing by adding his two cents worth. He says this: “Translation from the Absurdic: It's a Zio-American plot.” He makes this assertion even though there is nothing in the statement of the Egyptian Prime Minister -- as he reported it himself – about Zion or America. And this is typical of immature characters who cannot live without telling themselves that they are the center of attention whether they are or they are not.

But having falsely accused the Egyptians of seeing a Zio-American under every desk, he now feels the need to counter and to neutralize the implication of that picture. He does it by painting the image of an Egypt that is placid. Here is how he puts it in the form of a metaphor: “...picture Egypt as a vacant lot in which … combustible elements … sit in varying degrees of proximity to one another, while the boys who play in the lot light cigarettes. Chances are, something will catch fire … if something does, all of it will.” As to what the Egyptians really said about the disturbances, an official explanation was given that blamed the usual suspects.

Like everywhere else in the world, Egypt, which is a nation of 80 million people, has soccer hooligans, provocateurs, anarchists and what have you. When a disturbance occurs somewhere in the country for whatever reason, those characters see it as an opportunity to join the fray and to amplify the chaos. This happened on a number of occasions since the days when the textile workers staged a civil disobedience in the industrial city of Mahalla El Kobra and were joined by anarchists that turned the peaceful protest into violent clashes.

Still, Egypt remains an unusually peaceful place except for the road accidents that claim 120 people a week on average. And when you come right down to it, you find that Bret Stephens and those who make up the Jewish propaganda machine are aware of this. In fact, when a disturbance took place near the Israeli embassy in Cairo a few months ago, and when talk began to surface blaming the incident on Israel's shooting of Egyptian border guards in the Sinai, every Jew that wrote or said something about the incident played down the significance of the disturbance and attributed it to soccer hooligans.

If this is the reality of Egypt, if the Jewish propaganda machine is aware of it and if that machine is forced by circumstances to paint a true picture of the country once in a while, why did the columnist feel compelled to go on and paint the following apocalyptic picture: “The ... Copts … will have to … fight for themselves in a country that suspects their allegiance. It's a recipe for repression and murder on a mass scale. But even then it's only one of Egypt's several unfolding tragedies.” Why did he make a metaphoric flip that ended up clashing with the first metaphor? The answer to this question is simple as much as it has profound implications. It is that Bret Stephens is expressing a wishful thinking, one that also belongs to the Jewish leaders, most of whom are pessimistic about the future.

These people are paranoid about what will happen to the Jews and to Israel, and they look forward to the day when Egypt will again suffer as much as it did during the fictitious plagues mentioned in the Old Testament. And these were the events that supposedly made possible the Exodus of the Jews out of Egypt thus gave birth to the Jewish nation. And this is what makes hating Egypt the rock upon which the Jewish religion was fashioned, where it always stood and where it stands now. Those who cannot carry this hate in their hearts at all time are told they have ceased to be Jews and counseled to leave the faith. Simply put, a Jew is defined as someone who hates Egypt by religious decree and wishes to see it destroyed by religious dogma.

Stephens goes on to describe what happened during the worst few minutes of the Sunday disturbances in Cairo and uses the events as a springboard to jump to the following statements, all of which are exaggerated fiction with less than a scintilla of truth in them: “...the sequence of events captures the broader collapse of authority throughout Egypt … regional officials who will not stand up to … mobs. Furious Coptic Youth who no longer accept the cautious dictations of their elders. Conscript soldiers not afraid to disobey their orders. A … media that traffics in incitement...” But even if all of this were true, when you compare it to what happens everywhere else in the world, it would not amount to the apocalypse that the Jewish propaganda machine dreams to see befall Egypt. And so, to ratchet up the sense of doom and urgency, the author does more dreaming. He says this: “And that's not the half of it. The Sinai is becoming another version of Yemen … The economy has registered two ... quarters of ... negative growth … The ... democratic coalition ... consists of 27 separate parties … There are estimates that 100,000 Copts have fled Egypt since the ... revolution; the number is probably exaggerated, but the trend line is clear.” And so you ask if this is the apocalypse yet, and the answer is no; there is not enough here to constitute an apocalypse.

But what else is there for a Jewish columnist to say? Well, there is the sledge hammer approach to use and this is how he uses it: “Will the Middle East be emptied of its Christians, like the earlier pogroms emptied the Middle East of its Jews?” Pogrom and Holocaust are the two hammers they use when all else fails. But he posed a question in two parts and the question must be answered. To answer the first part, no this will not happen because no Arab country has asked the other countries to recognize it as a Muslim state the way that Israel, for example, has asked to be recognized as a Jewish state. And not one Arab foreign minister has advocated the kicking of non-Muslims out of the country the way that Avigdor Lieberman, the foreign minister of Israel has done with regard to the non-Jews who have lived there since the beginning of time. Israel is being emptied of its Christians and Muslims as a deliberate policy of the governing regime but nothing like this is happening in the Arab or Muslim countries and never will they happen.

As to the second part of the question, let me begin by relating what happened a few years ago. A clash took place somewhere in the world where 7 Jewish individuals were killed. Right away someone (probably a rabbi) jumped in front of the cameras and spoke of the 7 dead people that represent the 7 million Jews who were exterminated in the Holocaust. For a while after that, the media spoke of the 7 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Then someone realized that quoting this new figure was not going too well with the various audiences because the documentation of history had advanced so much, you could no longer run around and spew any number of dead Jews that came to mind just to suit the poetry of the moment. Thus, everyone went back to the 6 million figure where it has remained ever since.

What is significant about this story is that it warns about making false stories in the modern age. Thus, to claim that pogroms emptied the Middle East of Jews when the Jews themselves were saying until recently that they were eternally grateful to the Arab hospitality that protected them for centuries, is plain stupid. Stop for a moment and look at the consequences of making a claim like this. Most people know that the Holocaust happened and yet there are some who will deny it because they say they are tired of hearing about it and would rather say it did not happen and go on with their lives than dwell on something they are fed up getting in the face everywhere they turn. And this, my friend, says that there is nothing you can do to trivialize the Holocaust worse than talk about it incessantly, especially when you are seeking to monetize it.

With this in mind, imagine what people will do when you start telling about pogroms that never happened in an age where the veracity of every claim can easily be checked. But I shall not waste your time or mine speculating about this question; I ask this one instead: Why would someone like Bret Stephens want to reverse history with a flagrant lie like that? The answer is that he may not do it to suit the poetry of the moment but he would do it to suit the political developments of the moment. The reality is that an already bankrupt Israel which bankrupted America may soon be asked to compensate the Palestinians for what the Jewish hordes have looted from them. And so, the Jewish organizations came up with a plan to have someone else pay in their stead.

To understand how that plan was supposed to work, the reader should know that when the Jewish organizations plan something, they design it from top to bottom. That is, they ask themselves what ultimate goal (think of it as the penthouse) they wish to attain. Beginning there, they design the lower floors in a descending sequence till they reach the basement where they put down what they call the infrastructure. The aim on this occasion was to create a narrative that would show the Arab countries being indebted to the Jews who lived among them amounts of money that match what the Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe looted from the Palestinians. This would have given the Jewish leaders the basis upon which to argue for the swap of one debt with the other and call the thing even. Diabolic as the plan may have been, something funny happened to the Jewish organizations on their way to the basement of its construct.

They took their case to the United Nations where the truth started to come out; and they quickly decided to abandon the project. What came to light was that the Arabs should have done what the Russians later did which was to deny the Jews an exist visa till they paid the taxes they were owing and paid for the free education they had received. The truth had shown that the Arabs not only let the Jews go free to avoid seeing them chant: “Let my people go” as they did in front of the Russian embassies in most Western capitals, they even allowed the Jews to break the laws restricting the transfer of money out of the country. The Arabs turned a blind eye while the Jews were plundering the place, and they let them go free. A tally was then made as to who owes what to whom and the result was that Israel could never compensate the Arab countries for what the Jews had looted on their way out. It turned out that the Jews did in modern times what the ancient Jews did on their way out of Egypt; they robbed the places that nurtured them to go to the “land of milk and honey” then bragged about their exploits in biting the hands that literally fed them. What can be more Jewish than this?

With that plan shot down in flames before they could begin the construction of the infrastructure they had in mind, the Jewish leaders turned to the use of the sledge hammer in their attempt to construct another infrastructure. They began by advancing the false narrative of Jews being pogrommed in the Arab countries and they concluded that the Palestinians should do what good boys and good girls do which is to ethnic cleanse themselves out of Palestine without seeking compensation from Israel because this would be the responsibility of the Arabs. And you can see the pattern here; having bellyached for decades that the Arab countries should absorb the Palestinians who are kicked out of their homes, the Jewish leaders now say that the Arabs should compensate the Palestinians whose properties the Jews are looting. I don't know which one applies more aptly here; it may be chutzpah or it may be hubris but who cares anyway! I don't anymore.

And of course, a Jew would not be a Jew if in the end he did not tell someone what they need to do to solve all their problems, and Bret Stephens is no exception. Thus, after telling the Egyptians they are on their way to an assured apocalyptic hell, he tells them they need a savior to modernize them in the manner of the near ancient Muhammad Ali Pasha, not the more recent Gamal Abdel Nasser. Failing this, says the columnist at the Wall Street Journal, the Egyptians may end up with a messianic Ayatollah Khomeini who will be a calamity for the United States. The subtle advice here is that America should poke its nose in Egyptian affairs and see to it that these people follow his instructions.

As mentioned earlier, the mixing of metaphors can be fun for the author and be informative as well as entertaining for the audience but when you try to use the mix to have it both ways, you end up bringing together metaphors that clash. The effect will be to expose you as a practitioner of ambiguities, and the bad mix will kill your presentation. This is why the Bret Stephens column this week is worth no more than the rag in which it is published. And this is a metaphor to express the number zero.

Education Wasted On The WSJ

On October 6, 2011 the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an editorial under the title: “The Education of Susan Rice” and the subtitle: “A shocked ambassador learns what the U.N. is really about.” Well, maybe the ambassador did learn something or maybe she did not. And maybe there was something to learn or maybe there was not. What is clear, however, is that the Wall Street Journal learned nothing of the lessons that were there to be learned in the years that passed, and learned nothing of the lessons that are here to be learned today, including what just happened at the United Nations. In fact, when it comes to the education of the Wall Street Journal, it has all been a waste of time and it still is.

Briefly what happened during the recent events is that Russia and China did something they rarely do at the United Nations which is that they used the right of the veto they have at the Security Council. They used it this time to kill a proposed resolution that was supported by the United States, one that criticized the events unfolding in Syria. And the Wall Street Journal opined that this was the awful reality by which the “Liberal” Susan Rice was mugged as evidenced by the fact that she said she was outraged, and by the views that she vented on Twitter, one of which was: “This is a sad day” and another that went like this: “We will not rest until the Council rises to meet its responsibilities.”

But what is it that is so flawed about the thinking of the Journal that it cheers every American veto which is cast to encourage Israeli savagery in the Middle East but laments any veto that is cast by someone else when it calls for caution and for patience? The first clue as to what is flawed about that thinking hits you in the face when you see the editors of the Journal call Susan Rice a Liberal. In fact, it does not matter whether she is a Liberal or anything else; what matters is that in their quest to describe her, the editors of the Journal have revealed their hand which is that they are playing politics with the subject. The worst part is that they are playing not just any politics; they are playing politics of the Judeo-Yiddish kind – the worst that you can imagine. You know they are playing politics because they are involving the whole world in the Liberal-versus-Conservative tussle that characterizes the local politics in America at this point in its electoral cycle.

If anything, the rest of the article demonstrates how much the playing of the political game influences the thinking of the Journal editors. And when you see this, you get a feel as to the effect that such thinking has on two points which are crucial to America at this juncture in the Republic's evolution both as a world power and a society. The first point concerns what is happening to America's standing in the world, a trend that the savvy political class has indicated it does not like. The second point concerns the shift that the American culture is forced to undergo, a trend that the public has indicated it does not like.

At first you tend to sympathize with the editors of the Journal because you think it may be that they are slow to learn or that they have difficulty gathering the pertinent data. Thus, you hope they will be flooded with so much data it will be impossible for them to miss seeing the truth. But you discount this theory when you learn from reading the rest of the editorial that they have all the data they need; and you come to realize that the problem resides in their inability to process that data intelligently no matter how much of it they have and how much time they are given to study it. Look at this paragraph: “Unlike … Gadhafi … who made … enemies in the Arab world and beyond that he couldn't count on Moscow or Beijing … Syria's Bashar Assad is … in good … standing. His security forces … put thousands … in … prison. But this didn't keep the Sino-Russian duo from coming to his aid – the first time they have cast their vetoes together since 2008, when they blocked a resolution condemning Robert Mugabe's human-rights record.” There is so much data packed in this passage you realize that the editors did not miss anything but processed what they had incompetently.

Having lined up all that data back to back, you would have expected them to ask a series of pertinent questions such as the following. What happened to us that we cannot measure up to the Russians or the Chinese; not even to Assad or Mugabe? You would have expected them to wonder why it is that America is treated like a Gadhafi and lumped with him while the Arabs and the rest of the world shun the once respected superpower. You would have expected them to cry out that this is the same America which crushed the Nazi war machine to the cheers of the Europeans and the Africans; and managed to destroy the Japanese Imperial Navy even after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, to the cheers of the Asians. You would have expected them to observe that this is the same America that was once treated like the beloved liberator of Europe -- which it did in the 1940s when Eisenhower beat the Nazis; and treated like the beloved liberator of Egypt -- which it did in 1956 when Eisenhower ordered the French and the British to end their aggression on that country. And you would have expected the Journal to ask: What happened to us that we went in a free fall from the top of the mountain to the bowels of the toilet at such stunning speed? But the folks at the Journal did none of this because they lacked the mental processing capability of even a high school student.

Not only do you see them botch the processing of the data, you see them do worse as they try to steer the discussion in a false direction. Here is what they do in this regard: “Meanwhile … real steps are being taken against Damascus … the European Union [has] already adopted sanctions targeting Syria … Turkey broke its ties with Damascus...” Thus, you realize that they are trying to keep America wedded to the policies that pulled it from the top of the mountain to the bowels of the toilet. And this is when you understand that these people are not thinking for themselves but are operating like robots in the sense that they are running an old program; one they have been running for some time now.

And so you are not surprised to see them welcome the fact that someone has taken measures to punish Syria. These may not be measures that fully coincide with their vision of blood flowing in the streets and body parts flying in the air as would have done the full blown operation of shock and awe they constantly advocate for the Arab and Muslim countries but they are measures that, in their eyes, go in the right direction. And what this tells you is that the editors of the Journal are incapable of grasping the fundamental difference which separates the America of today from the America of yesteryear; that separates the America of today from the world of today. It is a difference that boils down to the fact that the world is preoccupied with the business and welfare of the world while America has been reduced to preoccupy itself with the business and welfare of Israel and only Israel even when the practice conflicts with the interests of the Republic and the American people.

And you get the feel that one thing worries the editors of the Journal more than anything else even if they do not admit to this or indicate the source of their worry. Being a voice that occupies a central place in the Jewish propaganda machine, the Journal suffers from the inability to see that the power and prestige of America have been reduced by its association with Israel and the Jewish causes to the point that it can no longer do what it was able to do simply by indicating what it wanted. And oddly enough, this is what prompted the editors of the Journal to develop the sense that America's preoccupation with Israel may be slackening. In response to this development, the Journal editors have joined the Jewish leaders in constantly nudging America to make up for the reduction in its influence by responding to every situation in the world with military force no matter what the consequences may be to the world and to America. This being what Israel wishes to become but cannot due to its limited resources, you see that America is being shaped to serve as the muscular alter ego of Israel.

Since the Administration governing America at the present time is of a stripe that does not exactly warm the hearts of the WSJ editors, and since that Administration has adopted a strategy of prudence more than one of military recklessness, the editors of the Journal saw in the Syrian development an opportunity to play local politics using world events. Here is what they write in this regard: “So why, except for reasons of masochism or moral abdication, does the Obama Administration insist on obtaining a symbolic and toothless U.N. resolution?” Following this question, the editors cobble together a few sentences to explain why they view the resolution as being symbolic and toothless before they get into the meaty stuff which they do eventually.

Well, let us say it may be meaty to them but what they do, in fact, is indicate that they have hit against a wall of reality which says that America is now a reduced power and that it continues to shrink because of its association with the losers of this world, chief among them being Israel. But the editors of the Journal could not have made such a discovery without going on to deceive themselves – a deception they tailor-make to soften the blow -- and so they inject a false premise into the argument. Look at the admission they make in the following sentence and look at the self-deception they attach to it: “The Syrian people will make their own history, with or without the U.N.'s moral imprimatur.” Yes, the Syrian people, like people everywhere, will make their own history and they don't need America or the Jews to make it for them. But when it comes to moral imprimatur, if there is an idiot that never stops judging other people to condone them or condemn them, it is not the UN but is America which does it mindlessly and does it automatically on a mere signal from its Jewish manipulators.

In the end, the evil that motivates them prevails as it always does, and they again expose the fantasy they harbor in their hearts and in their minds about seeing Syria being punished to the point where blood may flow in the streets, and body parts may fly in the air. Of course, they would have preferred that an attack against Syria be started and led by America but they will settle for someone else starting the attack such as Turkey for example which is, after all, still a member of NATO. To this end, they cheerfully tell us about the news that is now warming their hearts: “An opposition council on the Libyan model recently formed in Istanbul. With each defection … the Assad regime grows weaker.” And you can almost hear them sing their longing hymn of long anticipated triumph:

Blood, blood blood; we smell blood at last.
It’ll be Arab blood by NATO bombs that blast.

And to make sure that if and when Turkey starts the operation, America will not be left out but will elbow itself into the fray and end up dominating the operation, they give advice to anyone who may be listening to them. They say this: “Maybe … the Obama Administration might take further steps to oust Mr. Assad.” In fact, these people don't seem to believe that America should wait for Turkey to start the operation, they would go in right now if it were up to them. And they reveal this sentiment not in a straightforward manner but in a round about way. This is the last sentence they write: “Leading from the front would be out of character for this Administration, but so was Ms. Rice's disgust this week with the U.N.” In other words, they mean to say that because Ms. Rice reversed herself and became disgusted with the UN, they are allowing themselves to fantasize that the current Administration may also reverse itself and try to lead from the front instead of leading from behind which, according to them, has been the case up to now.

What all this should indicate to you and me is that the editors of the Wall Street Journal are driven by a fanatic vision which stays dormant when all avenues are closed to it. But if and when an opening occurs, the vision comes to life and the editors call for the same things that the Jewish leaders call for. In fact, you find that the vision of the Wall Street Journal exactly matches that of the Jewish leaders. And in the same way that people have throughout history unfairly concluded that a good Jew is a dead Jew, people are now concluding – and fairly so -- that the good Journal will only be good when it will become a dead Journal.

But I insist on saying that things do not have to develop in that way because Israel, the Jews and the Journal are welcome to join the human race by adhering to the civilized compact that is here for everyone to embrace and be a member in good standing.

The Reasons Why They Sabotage The Peace

What would you say if you were told that the Germans are sending out signals of warning and distress about a Government of Ireland that uses the resilience of the Irish economy to overwhelm, undermine and destroy the German economy? No question about it, you will say that either the German economy is not the whale that people think it is or the Irish economy is not the minnow that people think it is. Well, this is what happened in one case around the world except that it did not involve the German and Irish economies; it involved the Israeli and Palestinian economies. And when you understand what happened here you will see that the Israelis and their American cohorts had reasons to want to sabotage the peace process, something they did for several years while pretending to talk peace. You will realize that when these people accused the Palestinians of rejecting peace, there was nothing on the table to accept or to reject. The whole thing was a sham; an elaborate Jewish American sham.

The reason why clarity is now coming to this question is that a few things have changed -- which is also why the Israelis are using the considerable reach of the Jewish propaganda machine to signal to their friends around the world that if the Palestinians succeed in having it their way and if they gain economic independence -- let alone a full fledged political independence – it will mean the end of the Israeli economy. In other words, these people are saying that the Palestinian economy is starting to pose an existential threat to that of Israel. And this makes you wonder whether the Palestinians have a top notch economy you were not aware of or the Israelis have an economy that – if left to itself -- could not compete against some huddled masses living in squalor conditions in refugee camps; people whose necks may soon be liberated from the boots of an American equipped Jewish army of primitive savages.

Here is what is happening. A warning was written by Pinhas Inbari under the title: “Palestinians set to undermine the Oslo Agreements” and published in the online magazine of the World Jewish Congress on October 3, 2011. And here is the key sentence that tells you what the warning is about: “Israel has always rejected these demands, arguing that a breach of the customs border would expose Israel to the danger of dumping.” But what is dumping? you ask. Well, dumping usually refers to an item – such as steel, for example -- that a country (call it A) would sell into another country (call it B) at below the cost of production. This has the effect of killing the steel businesses of country B which will allow country A to monopolize the steel market of B. What usually happens after that is that A will raise the price of steel to the level that the market will bear, having no competition that can check it. And the end result will be that country B will gradually become impoverished while A will gradually become wealthier.

But the Inbari article goes beyond this because it warns about the dumping of not one or two items; it warns about the general dumping of all sorts of Palestinian goods and services into Israel. This would indeed threaten the entire Israeli economy but only if the Palestinians had the economic base with which to accomplish such a feat or if they can develop that kind of a base right after the Jewish American boots are lifted off their necks. Wait a minute you say, wait a minute. What is going on here? For decades we were led to believe that Israel was a “start up nation” of economic miracles whose ingenuity, influence and abilities were relied upon by the mighty economies of America, Germany and China to develop onward and to progress upward to reach the level of economic dream lands that they have become. And now you tell us that this same Israel is wetting its pants; worried sick about the thought that a bunch of Palestinian refugees can destroy its economy? How are we supposed to process information as shocking as this? Well, take a deep breath, my friend, and listen carefully. How? you ask. Well let me tell you how. Very simply; once and for all, put it in your head that when the Jewish propaganda machine talks about the Israeli economy, it talks bullshit. It is nothing but Jewish bullshit.

Okay. But what does Inbari and all the fearful people like him say will happen in practical terms? To answer this question, we need to know what they see on the ground at this time and what they project into the future. What they see in the West Bank – excluding the people of Gaza and the Palestinians of the diaspora who may wish to go home after the peace is installed -- is a demographically young population of 2.5 million people. This is equal to one third the current population of Israel which happens to be an older one.

At this time, the West Bank has a labor force of about 750,000 people that will quickly go to 1.25 million when Palestine will be liberated. Add to this the population of Gaza and that of the diaspora, and you can envisage a labor force of somewhere between 2.5 and 3 million people. Already now, the West Bank has a goods producing force of about 150,000 which is half that of Israel; the rest being in the service industries. When peace will come, the Palestinian labor force in the goods producing sectors could triple or do better to reach half a million people. And this will be a larger force than that of Israel – even though the total population of Palestine will still be smaller than that of Israel. As to why the Palestinian goods producing labor force will overtake that of a larger population, it is because Jews do not work to produce wealth; they work to accumulate the wealth that is produced by someone else or they join the army to kill and loot those who work for a living.

What the Israelis do now to maintain the image of a viable economy is that they import from abroad most of the durable and non-durable goods they consume -- from food to fuel to furniture to appliances to cars and so on. This represents about 14% of their total consumption. Another 4% go into the consumption of goods produced locally by small manufacturing industries in food processing, textile, plastics and the like. And a whopping 82% of the Israeli consumption consists of services in the fields of education and health that people agree are of low quality; and services in the field of security which is nothing more than the perpetuation of an occupation that is fast becoming a disservice to the Israelis as much as it is to the Palestinians.

At this time the Israelis buy most of the goods they consume from Asia and Europe, and they get the American and German taxpayers to pay for them or they borrow money and get the American government to endorse the loans. When Palestine will be free, the Israelis will buy most of these goods from the Palestinians who will start to mass produce them at very competitive prices. What little production there is now in Israel in terms of food processing, textile, building material and chemicals will be overwhelmed by the Palestinian industries and will be put out of business. After that, it will take little time for the Palestinians to challenge the Israelis even in the business of polishing diamond and the business of making jewelery.

And while Pinhas Inbari is not saying it openly, it is clear that this is what worries him and worries the World Jewish Congress. He sounds the alarm about the effect of the upcoming Palestinian economy on Israel but he attributes his fears to the usual boogeymen at which he and his cohorts have always pointed the finger. These boogeymen are what the Jewish leaders call the security of Israel and the de-legitimization of the Jewish state -- whatever that means. And to draw you into the world of his fantasy, Inbari begins by hitting you with an opinion that is more accusatory than it is enlightening: “Any change to the Protocols would undermine the very fabric of the Oslo Accords.” How and Why? He does not explain.

He does not explain but he repeats the point later on without explaining it this time either. Here is what he writes: “... in addition to economic repercussions, the PLO's current demand to alter the Protocols also has a political and, – as far as Israel is concerned – a security aspect. Aside from the protection of its economy, Israel is worried it will not be able to secure its borders...” Later still, he says this: “At the same time, the Palestinians may use the Protocols to wreak havoc on Israel's economy and advance their campaign of de-legitimization against Israel.” This is clearly the product not of a genuine paranoia but a fake one. It is paranoia manufactured by people who know what they are doing; and they are doing it to manipulate their followers whose lack of sophistication they exploit to the hilt.

Thus, Inbari takes solace in the fact that the Palestinians are not obsessed with the idea. What idea is that? Well, it is the idea of the Palestinians using the potential of their rising economy to “wreak havoc” on the Israeli economy then go on to de-legitimize the Jewish state. But where did the idea come from in the first place? It came from his imagination which is gripped with a fake paranoia as shown earlier. But if this is the case, what then is the true position of the Palestinians? Since you asked, here it is in his own words: “Still, the Palestinians are talking in terms of 'changes' and not the 'abrogation' of the protocols.” But knowing this should have cured him of his paranoia, fake or not -- should it not? No, not really. Why not? Because … well, it is because there are many reasons … Uh … I take that back … there are not many reasons. There is one reason out of which flow many sub-reasons. Get my drift? Not really but keep going. Well, you see, it is understood that only the Jews are good people and everybody else is bad. Everybody includes the Palestinians, you see. Get my drift? But when the Palestinians do something good it is not because they are good; it is because they fear doing the bad thing and not be able to get away with it. Get my drift now? No. But go on and give some examples.

Here is one example: “Actual 'abrogation' may have international repercussion on the Palestinians' statehood bid...” But unlike the opinions that Inbari has been voicing up to now without explanation, he is clear as to why the Palestinians should fear abrogating the Protocols. Here is what he says in this regard: “...as it [the bid] will present the nascent state as a country that does not respect its international obligations...” Clear and forceful. But while this is pure conjecture on his part, he completely ignores the fact that Israel has for all practical purposes unilaterally abrogated the Protocols a long time ago. Here is one instance where he indirectly admits to this without realizing what he did: “...Nabil Sha'at … adviser to Mahmoud Abbas, demanded that 150,000 Palestinians resume work in Israel proper as provided in the protocols.” The truth is that Israel reneged on this provision of the Protocols in favor of importing foreign workers to punish the Palestinians who want to be free, and to starve them into accepting the occupation if not loving it.

You want another example? Here is another one: “In addition, the Palestinians cannot afford to abrogate the Protocols because they do not enjoy a sustainable economy that is separate from the State of Israel. In fact, the Palestinians rely heavily on the Protocols for their revenues.” But this, my dear reader, is bullshit like only a Jew can blurt out and still maintain a straight face. The revenues this guy is talking about are taxes that the Israeli army collects from the Palestinians and hands them over to the Palestinian Authority. However, the moment that the Palestinians will go free, they will stop paying taxes to the Israelis and will pay them to their own government instead. When this happens, the Palestinians will be better off not worse off which means they have nothing to fear and everything to look forward to, contrary to what Inbari is saying.

Inbari then makes two points that say more about his wishful thinking than the reality of the situation on the ground. The first point is this: “Politically, the establishment of customs points along the 1967 would spell internal disaster for the Palestinians.” How and why? you scream but you get no answer. The second point he makes is this: “Hamas … would not accept … change imposed by Ramallah, despite the recent reconciliation between [it and] Fatah, as it has not even … compromise[d] on the … issue of daylight savings time...” What all this says to you and me is that when the Jewish leaders fantasize about something, they cheer for their worst enemy if they believe he can deliver the destruction they hunger to see befall someone. And this is such a demonic thought to harbor, you wonder if these people will ever be reformed.

Then there is the obligatory closing which consists of reiterating that if you're not a Jew you have bad intentions; and if you're a Palestinian you have the worst of intentions. Here is how Inbari formulates this thought: “It is in Israel's interest that the Palestinians enjoy a thriving economy … It is another issue … if [they] care more about waging lawfare … cynically using the economy and international agreements to attain their goals.”

You see, my friend, what these people are saying is that Jews are a good people because they only tolerate what is good for them and what is in the interest of Israel. And they say that the Palestinians are a bad people because they respect international agreements and the rule of law, a stance that makes them a cynical people. By this, Inbari and the World Jewish Congress insinuate that when the Palestinians go to court, they don't go to seek relief or obtain justice, they go to wage lawfare. Get it? The Palestinians wage lawfare to destroy Israel. To them, this is a new holocaust in the making and they need help fast.

Quick, get the American bunch of idiots in the Congress to pass resolutions. Have them pass non-binding resolutions telling the world that the Palestinians do not want peace and asking the world to weep for Israel. And have them pass unanimous resolutions that condemn people everywhere in the world who object to Israel's commission of crimes against humanity because the Jews have good intent no matter what crime they commit and the Palestinians have bad intent no matter how much they are made to suffer in silence. Get my drift, buddy?