Buzzing Like A Swarm Of Parasites

Soon the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu will get to this Continent intending to peddle his style of thinking among his friends such as the AIPAC crowd, peddle it among those who pretend to be his friends such as the hordes in the American Congress, and peddle it among those who cannot stand him such as everyone else that is enlightened in America. Baring a last minute surprise he may come up with, we already know what he wants and what he will say to get it because he has mouthpieces over here who track him to constantly echo his thinking and spread it among the populace. What they do is sense where the action is going at any given moment and head in that direction like a swarm of bugs eager to fulfill the duty they were programed in advance to carry out.

One of Netanyahu's mouthpieces and perhaps the most consequential of all is the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal whose members made sure to publish articles on Iran's nuclear program, a subject that is Netanyahu's current obsession. The articles were written by the editors themselves, by the Journal columnists and by outside contributors. Without exception, they all carried and supported the Netanyahu line of thinking as well as his logic -- however twisted it may have been. Thus, on February 21, 2012 the Journal published a piece under the title: “Containing Israel on Iran” and the subtitle: “General Dempsey sends a message of U.S. weakness to Teheran.” And on February 27, 2012 they published another editorial under the title: “Wishing Upon Iran” and the subtitle: “U.S. spies hold out hope the mullahs won't build a bomb.”

As indicated by the title, the subject discussed in the February 21 editorial is America's stance on the tension that exists between Iran and Israel. There is no doubt that a few things could be said in this regard and were said. But more importantly, a wealth of information was yielded in the process about a philosophy of international relations that turned out to be so strange, it could only be attributed to an out-of-control mob. In fact, the mob is a swarm of individuals and institutions that act collectively as a mouthpiece for Netanyahu. Theirs is a philosophy that is being injected into America's foreign policy -- stealthily at times and aggressively at other times -- and there is an example of it right here. You will find it encapsulated in one sentence in the middle of the article: “If the U.S. really wanted its diplomacy to work in lieu of force, it would say and do whatever it can to increase Iran's fear of an attack.” Here it is as clear as crystal, the Netanyahu people are inciting America to adopt a foreign policy that is based on spreading fear and terror.

In addition, the swarm is promoting the idea of superpower America establishing a worldwide Pax Americana that will rule the world by pressuring the nations that refuse to toe the line in every way possible. As to the system of governance by which the superpower itself is being managed and will continue to be; it is done by decrees drawn up in the form of opinions put out by institutions like the Journal editorial board and the AIPAC/Likud axis which extends from New York to Tel Aviv. Together, these institutions and the individuals associated with them will continue to be the sources outside the control of the American voters that effectively govern America. Their primary preoccupation is to ascertain that Israel will continue to live comfortably at the expense of the American taxpayers. And this is what makes the swarm look like one of parasites not one of ordinary bugs. It is a swarm endowed with an appetite so insatiable; it has turned Israel into a bottomless pit for American treasure and American blood.

What prompted the Journal to write that editorial was the statement made earlier by General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff. This is how they reported what he said: “[He] sent … the wrong message … He said the U.S. is urging Israel not to attack Iran – because Iran hasn't decided to build the bomb … and because it would invite retaliation and be 'destabilizing' throughout the Middle East.” The editors then pushed back against those ideas in this way: “General Dempsey managed to tell the Iranians they can breathe easier because Israel's main ally is opposed to an attack on Iran … the US fears Iran's retaliation … [thus ratifying] Iran's rhetoric that the regime is a fearsome global military threat.”

You cannot fail to see here that the editors envisage the global game of the future as being a never ending struggle between America and someone else. This is not what America's founding fathers had in mind, not what any President has wanted for his country and not what the military wants now or has ever wanted in the past. It is a demonic vision that was brewed entirely inside the collective head of the swarm, portions of which were tried already and proven to be so disastrous for America, it is amazing that the people who still advocate it have the temerity to ask that it be continued, even enlarged.

Looking now at the February 27, 2012 editorial, the writers begin the piece with a question and their answer to it: “What will it take to persuade the US … that Teheran's … intentions aren't … peaceful? … An explosion.” To make it sound like they have something new to add to the discussion, they cite a report that was published a day or two earlier by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unfortunately for them, the report contains nothing new and so, they abandon it to rehash their old worn out views and those of Netanyahu.

In fact, they say that “America's spooks [which include General Dempsey] see a silver lining: Teheran … has yet to decide to assemble … an explosive [nuclear] device.” There is also this: “Some … sources go even further … they still believe … that Iran put its nuclear weapons-work on the shelf in 2003.” But what the editors of the Journal do not like is that America's spooks “... are drawing a narrow distinction between having the ability to build a nuke and actually building one … the model here is Japan.” And it is at this point that the editors of the Journal start to push back against America's intelligence community, something they do with this opening salvo: “There's a problem with this logic: Japan is not Iran.”

How so? you ask. And you get this answer: “Democratic Tokyo threatens nobody. Theocratic Teheran never ceases making threats.” But remembering the threats that the editors made on behalf of Netanyahu in the February 21 editorial, you realize that they are turning the truth upside down. Still, you resolve not to get excited but try to understand the mentality that powers these characters. To this end, you continue to read what they wrote: “...if the mullahs can readily acquire nuclear weapons, they will instantly change calculations in the Middle East and beyond.” And you begin to see this as a game they enjoy playing. To counter it, you find a way to put their version of the truth right side up again.

You do this by transposing the two words Iran and Israel. Thus, you write down the description of the current situation like this: “Iran threatens nobody. Israel never ceases making threats. Having deliberately adopted a policy of ambiguity, Israel may or may not possess nuclear weapons but it has changed calculations in the Middle East and beyond. This has broadened its strategic and tactical options while complicating those for everyone else, including the United States. And this is why the Middle East remains a powder keg to this day.” Having done this, you feel good about yourself because you know that this view is real and can be verified by inspecting the situation on the ground. By contrast, their view is speculation that cannot be verified unless they provoke it by unleashing terror on the world -- which is what they have been doing up to now and intend to continue doing from all indications.

So this is what the struggle is all about. It was never about an existential threat to Israel since to attack Israel has always meant to attack America, a reality that was proven during the 1973 war when America rescued Israel from being humiliated, not even from being annihilated. And what this means is that Israel shall live as long as America lives. The truth, therefore, is that the artificial tension created in the Middle East has to do with the manhood of adolescents who were yesterday's mamma's boys but are not sure what they are today. They believe they look like studs and are the only studs on the block. They want to keep it that way except that they sense a challenge coming from Iran. They fear they will be unmasked as eunuchs who pretend to be hardened men. Thus, to keep their image intact, they are willing to endanger America's security. But if America were to get hurt, this will endanger Israel's security as well. Thus, it is irrational for them to want something like this and yet, it is what they are aiming for. Go figure.

But having turned reality upside down, they now set out to exploit what they have wrought. Realizing that America cannot maintain the position they advocate without a legal argument to back it, they make one up using the upside down reality they fabricated. Self-defense being the best argument you can make to explain why you want to go after someone, this is what they rely on to build a case in the February 21 editorial: “[The US should] ... say and do whatever it can to increase Iran's fear of an attack. It would say publicly that Israel must be able to protect itself.” As you can see, they say in the same breath that they should terrorize Iran and call that self-defense by Israel. This is crazy but all we can do is shake our heads and ask: How does the world look to you when you stand on your heads, folks? We may also suggest this to them: Try to see things in the right side up position; you might like it better.

But that's not all they do that is irrational. They say that if Iran responds to an Israeli attack -- which would be legitimate self-defense on the part of Iran “...the US would have no choice but to intervene on behalf of its ally.” They go on to admit that to say so is coercion which is an illegal act. So you ask: why would they want America to commit an illegal act? And believe it or not, this is the reason they give: “...to make an adversary understand that the costs of bad behavior will be very, very high.” Whose bad behavior? you ask; the scenario that they imagined themselves is that of Israel attacking, Iran defending itself and America intervening to help Israel. And they call Iran's behavior bad? How can this be viewed by the rest of us except that it is the work of raving lunatics? Like my Jewish friend used to say when he encountered this kind of logic: Light up the oven!

You begin to understand that this is a world you cannot describe metaphorically as being a world of psychopaths because it is a world of authentic psychopaths. What makes these people so dangerous is that they still have the presence of mind to formulate arguments by which to go after the sane people who thankfully have the power to act in these matters. Look what these characters write: “The General [Dempsey] is not a free-lancer, so his message was … guided by the White House.” You ask: What's wrong with that? And they tell you what they believe is wrong: “...Dempsey's comments will … mak[e] war more likely, not less. They will increase Israel's anxiety … if Mr. Obama is re-elected … this may drive Israel … to strike sooner.” Whose fault is that? you ask. They don't tell you in this editorial but they do in the February 27 one.

And what better way is there to get to the bottom of a subject than to go to the neocons and ask them for their opinion? This is how they bring these guys into the debate: “...what about those … spooks whispering that the conclusions of the 2007 NIE are still good? We wonder if they've talked to the famous neocons...” But who are the neocons? you ask. They are the reason why the spooks are reluctant to say what the Netanyahu parasites want to hear. Why the reluctance? Because the neocons admittedly made serious mistakes in the past: “Part of it may be the lingering damage from the WMD mistakes over Iraq.” So then, why would you ask these same people for their opinion? Because “President Obama has misjudged Iran at every turn … Wishful intelligence thinking won't deter Israeli leaders from defending their interests any more than it will stop Iran from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” That's WMD, by the way as in Iraq's WMD about which the neocons were so wrong.

This is how and why the editors of the Wall Street Journal and their co-parasites conclude that the American government and its military were at fault yesterday, are at fault today and how they continue to make a big mistake. They rebuke the leaders of America for refusing to start a war they must know by now will finish off the superpower the same way that the mighty British empire was terminated by the ill-advised Suez adventure. Still, these parasitic entities want America to go to this length just to make Netanyahu feel he is no longer a mamma's boy but a Middle Eastern stud that can stiff anyone at will then run to hide behind the testicles of Uncle Sam.

Don't play ball with them, Mr. President. Kick them in the ass instead and certainly, keep them away from your rug.

Go And Do What To Himself?

There have been two incidents in my life that took me nearly fifty years each to resolve. The first incident happened around the year 1950 or 1951. We were in Djibouti at the time, a place at the Horn of Africa that was then inhabited by only 25,000 people. We had everything that was considered modern at the time in that place, including electricity. But there was very little of that compared to what you might see today, for example in a big metropolitan center. I was not ten years old and one thing I liked to do in the evening was to sit outside the house and gaze at the Milky Way which I could see as vividly as a glass of milk you spill on a black table.

One night, after everyone else had gone inside the house and I was sitting alone, I heard a thunderous cracking even though the sky was without a speck of cloud. Something strange then followed: the Milky Way started to fade from the sky till it disappeared completely. It took it two or three seconds to turn itself out after which another phenomenon happened, the color of the sky slowly turned from pitch black to reddish. For several decades, I could not figure out what happened that night and I never talked to anyone about it.

Then, one evening in the year 1996 or 1997, I was standing on the balcony of my apartment in Montreal, looking not at a sky that cannot be seen due to the abundance of artificial light coming from below, but looking at the various sources of that light: blinking signs, car headlights and buildings that are illuminated with an outside source shining on them as if to compete with the light that is coming from the inside through glass windows. And then I heard a thunderous cracking that sounded almost the same as the one I heard in Djibouti nearly half a century earlier though I did not make the connection between the two incidents. I did not look to the sky to see if the Milky Way was there turning itself off or if the sky was turning reddish in color.

By way of explanation as to the source of the sound I just heard, well I thought to myself that Montreal is a big city, I live close to the downtown area where all sorts of sounds are made even though this one was different from what I am used to hearing. But the building is not exactly a quiet sort of residency, and a neighbor could have done something different from the norm. I left it at that for a few hours then sat down to watch the news. This is when I learned that a meteor had fallen near Montreal generating a sonic boom that was heard all over the city and beyond. And this was the moment I finally resolved the mystery of Djibouti. What happened then was that a meteor had entered the atmosphere and made the sound I heard. It must have broken up into tiny particles of dust that saturated the atmosphere and masked the Milky Way from my view. And it was this layer of dust that reflected the little light coming from below to give the sky the reddish color that so puzzled me as a child and so intrigued me well into my adult years.

The other incident I was able to resolve lately is something that happened either in 1964 or 1965, having been in the country only a few weeks at the time. It remained a source of puzzlement to me ever since, as I am sure it must be to every newcomer to this Continent. The thing is that I could never figure out how someone can do what someone else was telling him to do which was: “Go f...k yourself.” Well, thanks to the Wall Street Journal and to a guy called Elhanan Miller, I know now how it can be done. It is that Miller does it to himself in an article titled: “Bibi Said What?” which the Journal published on February 24, 2012 and gave it the subtitle: “Newsflash: The Israeli prime minister did not declare on Facebook that he wishes death to 355 million civilians.”

To me, Elhanan Miller is not a name that rings the bell, which is a good thing because it gives me the opportunity to judge his article on its merit and not by any idea I might have formed about the writer from previous exposure to his work. The Journal says he is the Arab affairs reporter for the Times of Israel and a research fellow at the International Center for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence at King's College in London. And this is where begins the lesson which, in my mind, shows how someone can do it to himself. You read the article and you understand that he wants to say the Arabs have been radicalized but in fact, he only manages to demonstrate how radical Judaism tried to contaminate the Arab mind but failed miserably. And you realize how someone can do it to himself as this one does royally at King's College.

The newsflash mentioned in the subtitle is about a road accident in which a number of Palestinian children died and many more injured when an Israeli truck slammed into their school bus. This is how Miller tells us about it: “...Netanyahu expressed condolences to the victims' families on his official Facebook page. 'I've expressed sorrow at the death[s]...' he wrote in Hebrew … hours after the accident.” What? Miller is saying that Netanyahu expressed condolences to the victims' families who are Arabs by addressing them in the third person on his Facebook page; doing it in Hebrew and doing it several hours after the accident?

Then as a result of the accident and of Netanyahu's posting, says Miller: “An incredible chain of events … played out in the Middle East...” But before telling you what triggered those incredible events, he expresses an opinion about them by editorializing on the subject like this: “...demonstrating the lengths to which opinion-shapers and politicians in the Arab world will go to demonize Israel.” Oh, those bad Arabs. What did they do now? you ask. Well, are you ready for the bombshell, my dear reader? Brace yourself for, here it comes: “...a number of Israelis responded to his post expressing relief at news that the victims were not Jewish or Israeli. Some were even happy that innocent Palestinians were harmed. One commenter went so far as to ask: 'Can we send another truck?” Now, my friend, you see how good the Jews are, how bad the Arabs are and how Miller just f...ked himself by editorializing before telling you what he is editorializing about. So very Jewish, so very Jewish.

Having done this, he now wants to build on it to show how the Arabs go about demonizing Israel and, more importantly, why they do it. Here is how he goes about completing this task: “The vile comments were … removed from Netanyahu's page and the … incident … criticized in Israeli media.” Notice that Netanyahu did not criticize and that Miller does not give a sense of the criticism that was leveled by the media. Despite this, he wants you to know that: “...none of this prevented a … Jordanian daily … from misattributing the Facebook comments to Netanyahu himself … Citing an article in Israeli daily Haaretz, which reported that 'racist comments appeared on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Facebook Page.'” Miller goes on to say: “The story was picked up by news agencies in Jordan and across the Arab world, who rushed to condemn the prime minister...” Ah, those bad Arabs! If only they would bother to learn how the media conduct themselves say, in Britain and in America, they could have a press that is always accurate, never sensationalistic and staying away from citing the likes of Haaretz.

But you don't get a sense that Miller wishes to blame the Arab media themselves as much as he wants to blame other institutions and individuals. That tendency is shown in this passage: “One may have expected the media brouhaha to die down within a day or two, as it has in the past.” But something else happened, he says, which seems to bother him: “...the Arab League … convened … to lambaste Netanyahu…” That's bad enough if you're one of those who admire Netanyahu. But notice that the Arab League did not say it was about to take measures where all options would be on the table. Still, the absence of a threat did not satisfy Miller who went on to complain that: “In comments, … league official Mohammad Subeih declared that '...Netanyahu posted these remarks on his facebook page then tried to deny them.” Well, given all that happened – most of which being the fault of Netanyahu and the Israeli media – you cannot blame a minor official to feel the way that he did. Maybe so, but that's not the only thing, says Miller, because the same Arab League official looked at the “vile” comments that were posted by members of the Israeli public, and he expressed the opinion that: “showed how grave the Israeli racism against the Palestinian people was.” That does it in the eyes of Miller because it is one thing for a Jew to call those comments vile; it is another thing for an Arab to opine that they prove racism. Look how bad the Arabs are, how good the Jews are and how easily a Miller can do it to himself.

There is a trail here, says the author, and it “illustrates how prone senior opinion-shapers in the Arab world are to believe the most implausible stories about Israel.” He laments loudly about that, doing it in the form of a question he poses: “Did they … think ...that Netanyahu … would post … racist comments on a website?” Wait a minute mister, wait a minute -- wait, wait, wait. The Arabs lambasted Netanyahu but they only characterized as racist the comments that were made by the people who responded to the post like those who expressed happiness at the fact that Palestinian children were killed, and the one that suggested Israel should send another truck. Still, having posed a question, Miller answers it in the affirmative. He then goes on to do something so Jewish, you may classify it as intellectual syphilism of the kind that only a Jew can ejaculate. What he does is stand on what he believes is the brilliant victory he just scored to fight battles that were killed and buried in the past by the people who pushed against them. To this end, he loads the dead arguments onto the coattail of a victory that never was in the hope that the corpses will come back to life and reenter the debate. He'll have to do it alone because I am not participating.

But this is not the only syphilitic ejaculation you see Miller do. As always, when these people convince themselves they just gave a good argument, they don't stop here and let you digest it but ask for a payment right away. Miller shows he is no exception, not only in immediately asking for a payment but in asking for it by insulting someone. What can be more Jewish than that!

Here is how he does it. He writes: “Many Arabs' capacity to think the worst of Israel is … the product of … deep ignorance. Even [with] … Egypt and Jordan … relations have been [at] arms-length at best. While … Israelis have … acquaintance with Muslim culture, their counterparts in Cairo and Amman, to say nothing of Riyadh, have no firsthand knowledge of practicing Jews and … no access to Israel art, music and literature.”

What he is saying here is that the Arabs are so ignorant, they need to do something to remedy the situation. To this end, they should visit Israel as tourists and start buying Israeli arts, music and books. Where Miller is doing it to himself is in demonstrating how little he knows of what he is talking about. He based his presentation on what a Jordanian newspaper wrote, and what an official at the Arab League in Cairo said. These are the two countries that have relations with Israel. By contrast, nothing came from Saudi Arabia whose capital is Riyadh. This says the more you know about the Israeli, the worse you think of them. Yet, he makes it sound that things are worse with Saudi Arabia by using the expression: “to say nothing of Riyadh.” So you ask why does he do it? Good question; easy answer. Egypt benefits greatly from Arab tourism, and the Saudis are the biggest spenders of all. He wants a piece of the action which he believes he can get by insulting the people he is inviting. What can be more Jewish than that! What can be more syphilitic morally than that.

He ends the article like this: “The result is that to … Arabs, [the] Israelis are foreign … in their actions and motivations … [where] even the wildest proposition … sounds reasonable. Until Arabs … attempt to understand Israelis … demonization, conspiracy theories and ignorance will continue to thrive.” Oh, the poor idiot! He has just shown that when it comes to the Israelis and the Jews, ignorance about them is bliss. This is why Amman and Cairo spoke up, and why Riyadh remained mum. And when you look at it on the larger scale of history, this is why the Jews were pogrommed and holocausted by the Europeans who knew them, not the Chinese or the Japanese who still know very little about them.

Like the saying goes: be careful what you wish for because you may get it. What Miller and those like him are aiming for is a star that will shine bright in the firmament of nations. What they will get, instead, if they stay on the present trajectory is a meteor on a collision course whose end will be to burn out and turn into dust perhaps for the last time.

Thomas Friedman Says He Is Sad

He says it in a column he begins like this: “Sadly, the transitional government in Egypt today appears determined to shoot itself in both feet.” The column came under the title: “Egypt's Step Backward” and was published in the New York Times on February 21, 2012. Friedman pours his heart out as well as his tears about an Egyptian Revolution that is apparently not living up to his ideals. You look again at his opening sentence to see what it is that is saddening him, and your eyes are caught by a little something that has to do with shooting oneself in both feet. For a moment you wonder if he meant it as a political metaphor to say that Egypt chose a course that treats the left and the right equally. But you also entertain the possibility that the expression may just be another one of those exaggerations he is famous for. It could well be that since the actual expression goes: “shooting oneself in the foot,” he decided to generate twice the impact by involving both feet. Whatever.

He goes on to gripe about this: “On Sunday, [Egypt] will put on trial 43 people … for allegedly bringing unregistered funds into Egypt to promote democracy without a license.” What's wrong with that? you ask. The correct procedure -- as it is followed everywhere in the world -- is to allege a wrongdoing then take the matter to trial; and this is what the Egyptians did. Oh no, there is nothing wrong with that, says Friedman, and he even goes on to explain: “Egypt has every right to control international organizations operating within its borders.” Well, is there a but? you ask. Oh yes there is a but, and it is a big “but” at that because it is followed by “the truth”. Here is that passage in full: “But the truth is that when these democracy groups filed their registration papers years ago under the autocracy of Hosni Mubarak, they were informed that the papers were in order and that approval was pending.” The approval was pending but not given, you see. So the groups acted as if the approval was given. What can be more law abiding than that? Friedman sees nothing wrong with it. The New York Times sees nothing wrong with it. Only the Egyptian government sees something wrong with it. This is two against one and the two win. See? It is democracy at work. Get it? Two win against one.

You stop for a moment to scratch your head and figure out if he is trying to say something more profound than this but nothing clicks. So you resume reading the article: “The fact that now – after Mubarak has been deposed by a revolution – these groups are being threatened with jail terms for promoting democracy without a license is a very disturbing sign.” Oh, look at the poor thing, he says he is disturbed. Well, I know a few people who do not need his confession to be convinced of same -- but that's another subject altogether. Anyway, you hope that Friedman will tell what it is that is bothering him thus get it off his chest and feel better. And this is what he does, in fact: “It tells you how incomplete the 'revolution' in Egypt has been and how vigorously the counter-revolutionary forces are fighting back.” Wow, you begin to sense that he is promising something big. You sense that you're in for a delicious treat, a presentation deserving of such admiration, it could go under the title: The Friedman Critique of Egypt's Version of the Federalist Papers.

Aren't you excited, my friend? Think about it, this is the guy who associated himself with every new invention that has appeared on the scene during the last two decades or so. From the personal computer to the latest gadget in the social media, he tried to own the trend by painting himself as being the foremost authority on the subject. To this end, he interviewed all the people he thought were worth interviewing, and he reported on their views by blending them with his own. In so doing, he made himself look like a veritable guru on the subject, something he may or may not be. If he is, imagine how impressive he will sound comparing our times with those of America's founding fathers. Imagine also how the meaning of freedom and democracy will be defined in the context of the new age of social media. Aren't you excited? I'm getting goosebumps already.

So here we go with the anticipated presentation. He begins it like this: “This sordid business makes one weep and wonder how Egypt will ever turn the corner.” Okay, Tom, we know all about your tears (crocodile or not) but get on with the presentation. We don't expect to see a scholarly critique of the first order but we need to see something meaty. Where is the meat, Tom? Alas, instead of real meant, he gives us this substitute: “Egypt is running out of foreign reserves, its currency is falling, inflation is rising and unemployment is rampant.” What? you scream. This is how he critiques events associated with the quest for freedom and democracy as they unfold in the age of social media? We need to weep alright; we need to weep at the sordid business that brought American journalism down to the level of the gutter. And we do not need to wonder how it all happened because we realize we are looking at one of the foremost culprits.

Still, he goes on to say this: “Yet the priority of a few retrograde Mubarak holdovers is to put on trial staffers from the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute, which are allied with the two main U.S. political parties...” He goes on to ask: “What is this really about?” And he answers his own question by attacking the minister of international cooperation, Fayza Abul Naga, Egypt's iron lady whom he calls an old Mubarak crony. He says she personifies a tendency that helps to explain why Egypt has fallen far behind its peers: South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brazil, India and China.

Being the forgiving person that you are, you say okay to yourself; maybe he has chosen to talk about economics instead of sharing his opinions pertaining to the subject of democracy in the age of social media. If this is his wish, you say goodbye to Egypt's “Federalist Papers” but you still expect him to deliver something that would be deserving of such level of admiration, it could go under a title that may sound like this: “The Wealth of Emerging Nations Operating in the Shadow of a Developed World.” Thus, you read the column in its entirety several times over while looking for something that may resemble economics but all you find is this: “Egypt today has only two predators: poverty and illiteracy … 33 percent of men and 56 percent of women in Egypt still can't read or write.”

At this point you stop asking anymore questions because you know he has no good answer to any of them. Instead, you take it upon yourself to educate the guy. You do so because there is joy in educating people and because you want to make the world a better place. You look around and see the many ignoramuses who hold prestigious positions from which they exert an enormous influence on a population that believes they know something -- and you want to change that. To this end, the first thing you tell the guy is to go back 10 or 15 years, and look at the statistics of say, South Korea since it is a nation he cited as being one of Egypt's peers. He will find in some publications that the literacy rate was listed as being 95%. A page or two later in the same publication, he will find that the number of people who never attended school was listed as being at the 40% level. This means that one third of the population became literate without ever going to school. How can that be?

An exhaustive research on the subject will show that when the rapid industrialization of South Korea began, nearly half the population had never attended school. Because the country needed a large number of people to do manual work such as material handling and assembly, the factories started their own classes to teach the new hires the few basic symbols that would allow them to follow simple instructions. The moment that these people were able to get through the day without making too many mistakes, they were called literate, and their numbers went into the statistical tables as such. By contrast, the Arab countries – Egypt among them – do not consider someone to be literate unless they hold a primary school certificate that shows they had at least six years of formal education. Thus, the first lesson that Friedman and the editors at the New York Times need to learn is that different cultures compile statistics differently. If you are going to compare things, you start by establishing what it is that you are comparing, or you will look like idiots.

The way things stand today in Egypt is that the truancy rate among young boys and girls is less than 2% which means that the country is on its way to having a literacy rate that is close to 100%. In the meantime, there are about 7 million “mature” people in the country who do not hold a certificate that says they had at least six years of formal education. When you add this number to the kids who are under the age of 13 and have not yet earned that certificate, you register an illiteracy rate of something like 20 or 25% which you see in some publications but is meaningless as well as misleading. As to the percentages quoted by Friedman, they are to be found nowhere except his imagination. In any case, the government of Egypt has instituted programs to eliminate illiteracy by tutoring the older folks who never had the chance to go to school. But from the looks of it, the program will not do well because most of the people who are eligible to enroll in it, do not need to be literate to survive. They are mostly retired people or they are stay-at-home mothers busy raising kids or looking after grand kids. I say, let them be, and let them rest in peace when nature will have run its course.

I live on a continent that claims to have a near 100% literacy rate but I know from experience -- being a retired teacher -- that a quarter of the population or more is so functionally illiterate, it would be classified as totally illiterate by Arab standards. A question that was often asked half a century ago, even splashed on the front page of magazines was this: “Why Johnny can't read?” Unfortunately, no one has come up with a good answer, and no formula was found to remedy the situation. It looks now like Johnny has grown into adulthood while remaining as illiterate as ever. But he found his way to the boardrooms of the nation, to the helm of sport teams and to a few other prestigious positions. What is going on?

Well, even though the question referred to the reading skills of Johnny, it meant to encompass the three Rs which cover the skills that deal with reading, writing and arithmetic. There is much that can be said about this vast subject but it will have to remain one for another time and another place. What is relevant now is to lay on this background the fact that we started to read the New York Times piece with great expectations only to be disappointed by the time we had fully exposed ourselves to its content. And this forces us to ask the question: Who is the author and what does he want?

To find the answer to these questions, we go back and read the old columns and the books that were written by Tom Friedman. He talked about technology, culture, economics, geopolitics and what have you. He teemed up with some people and he quoted other people. Some of these were in foreign countries but most were in America. Of this last group, you will have to check for yourself and see that 99% were Jewish. It is as if America was populated only by Jews. Thus, he wrote about the ways that America should remake itself to meet the challenges of tomorrow, yet all he did was to tell how America must conduct itself to be of use to Israel and only Israel. Journalism today is not about reflecting reality; it is about advocating new realities. You do not need arithmetic for this, and you do not need to understand what you read. You only need to acquire the skill to echo-repeat what you will be programmed to propagate. This alone can make you succeed in America.

And so it is with everyone in this sordid place they call Jewish America. It includes the US Congress whose only purpose is to serve Israel whether it is dealing with internal or external matters. And this is what the iron lady of Egypt saw when she looked at the activities of the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute, both of which are allied to the American political parties now running America as if it were a Jewish banana plantation in the service of Israel and the Jews worldwide.

Not only that but the setup is now geared to turn the whole world into one giant banana kingdom, and bring it under the reign of a modern King David as a Pax Americana that would be more like a Pax Judaica. Not us, said Fayza Abul Naga, not us. This may sadden Thomas Friedman and the editors of the New York Times but if -- in response -- Ms. Naga is too polite to do it, I'll do it myself: You have my middle finger, you Tom, you Times. Go to hell and stay there.

A Space Fantasy By Edward Luttwak

Imagine a race of extraterrestrial beings doing something to collect information about us and our planet to send back to their world. To this end, they plant censors we cannot detect in places all over the Earth and in the outer space near it. Among the tasks that the gadgets are capable of performing is to read the brain signals of individuals as they go about their daily lives doing what they normally do. The sensors send the information to a Coordinated Overseeing Super Intelligence (COSI) which is capable of learning on its own but that is also programmed to scan our media, learn from them as to who is who on the Planet (such as political figures, military leaders, opinion makers and the like) then look for these people in their natural habitat, lock in on their brain signals and read their thinking.

Having once locked on the signal of Edward Luttwak, having followed him for a while and having dismissed him as inconsequential, the interest of COSI in that man was rekindled when the prestigious Wall Street Journal printed an article of his on February 17, 2012. The article was published under the title “The President Has Been Given a False Choice on Iran” and the subtitle: “The Joint Chiefs have said a massive, sustained air campaign would be needed to set back the nuclear program. Not so.” Seeing this, the COSI reopened the file it had on Luttwak to reanalyze the old information it had on him and compare it with what is now being revealed about him.

The reason why Luttwak was dismissed the first time was that he appeared to discuss matters at a superficial level despite the fact that he managed to make his presentations sound profound. To be sure, there were occasions when he arrayed a subject the way he saw it but most of the time, he constructed the presentation in such a way as to serve the purpose of a third party – something that he and a few others did for one of many reasons. But because he had acquired a reputation of being a respected analyst, it was difficult for his peers to catch him doing something under pressure, do it under duress or do it out of deference to someone he values or someone that pays him. The consequence has been that very few of his peers dared to argue against him. But the censors of COSI picked up telltale signs that told it the man was less authentic than he appeared to be, and thus judged him to be so inconsequential as to dismiss him.

Having followed the debate regarding Iran and having noted both the huge quantity and the low quality of the incitement that is being generated to have someone attack that country, COSI came to the conclusion that the mouthpieces of Israel doing the incitement were failing to impress an America that remains reluctant to risk life or treasure doing a dirty work that need not be done. But what puzzled COSI and what prompted it to reopen the Luttwak file was that he did not try to sound profound this time around in his Wall Street Journal presentation. On the contrary, he seemed to deliberately tread on the light side of the discussion as if to insert in the article telltale signs that say: “Don't take me too seriously; I'm only having fun going along to get along.”

COSI started to pick up such signs when it read this sentence: “The magnitude and intensity of an attack is a matter of choice, and it needs to be on the table.” He came to this suggestion having made the false assertion that: “everyone ... assume[s] the attack is … a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.” But the fact is that the Americans had said and have repeated all along that everything was on the table which is a lot more than a single take-it-or-leave-it proposition. So then, how did Luttwak come to make that assertion? Well, this is how he did it: “That, by all accounts, is exactly how the issue was framed … in the last years of the … W. Bush administration.” What the author admits here is that he has relied on accounts of something about which he had no first hand knowledge; something that happened at least four years previous under a president that is no longer presiding.

Thus, COSI detected signs that Luttwak was making a point based on a fake reconstruction of old events he did not even attend – if they happened at all – while ignoring everything that has been said from that time to the present, and while negating all that was done during the same time frame. What a joke! And to say that this is done by someone who was supposed to be respected for his professional conduct! Yes, the man is having fun at being frivolous but the tragedy is that he is talking war and peace where people may die, properties destroyed and where unmitigated horror could be unleashed on a world that never asked for it.

He gets to the core of his presentation by comparing what he wants to see done versus the strategy that is said to have been prepared by the Joint Chiefs and presented to a previous president years ago. Theirs was a full scale air war, says Luttwak, one that would have gone on for a long time, resulted in a large number of casualties and been financially draining to the Pentagon budget. By contrast, his strategy consists of a surgical operation that will be: “inaudible and invisible, start and end in one night, and kill very few on the ground.” What a lovely little war, you might say. Don't you wish all wars were this sweet?

Before you respond to that rhetorical question, ask yourself what would be the purpose of a war like that. If you have no idea, here is a clue: “The resulting humiliation of the regime might be worthwhile in itself...” Hey, look at that, my friend. We are playing war games – little ones mind you, where only a few people are sure to die. But in return, we shall be rewarded with the knowledge that we have humiliated people we do not like. And the best part is that these people will be humiliated in the eyes of their own population not just ours. Ain't that great? Iranian leaders humiliated in the eyes of the Iranian population. Wow, what a neat idea! Let's go out in the street and dance the steps of jubilation in anticipation of the upcoming dainty little war.

Luttwak then argues the justification for adopting his strategy by first admitting: “That option was flatly ruled out as science fiction [and] … dismissed as political fiction.” But, he goes on to say this: “Yet this kind of attack was carried out … when the Israeli air force invisibly and inaudibly attacked the nuclear reactor [in] Syria.” Well, this is not the first time during this debate that someone has point to the Syrian example. The fact is that using the pretext of living under an existential threat, the Israelis and their cohorts in the American Congress have made sure that Israel always gets to be equipped with the appropriate mugging tool for every occasion to “invisibly and inaudibly” come behind a neighbor who is minding his own business and mug him like would do a common hooligan bent on terrorizing his neighborhood.

This happens while America which is playing the role of the self-appointed policeman of the region, protects the Jewish mugger from the wrath of a world that wants to see the Middle East go back to being the Garden of Eden it was before the advent of the hooligan. And if it happens that the mugger cannot complete an operation and get out of there unscathed, the policeman sheds his uniform, puts on the mugger's garb and joins the fray to do the job himself. He usually does not get in to finish off the victim but to save the mugger from humiliation, and maybe humiliate the victim just a little while he is at it.

A notable example in this vein was the moment during the 1973 crossing of the Suez Canal by the Egyptian army that America found it necessary to come to the direct aid of the Israelis. Even though the Egyptians had smashed through the Bar Lev line like a hot knife through butter, the Israelis were not at peril of being crushed because the Egyptians only wanted to retake the Eastern side of the Canal to reopen the waterway, get the revenues back on stream and shore up their economy. They so advised the Americans who then asked for a ceasefire that the two warring sides accepted. The thing, however, was that Israel would have been humiliated under these circumstances. Thus, to counter this possibility, the Americans flew their own planes and brought supplies to the Israelis at the front line. It happened during the 6 to 12 hours that followed the acceptance of the ceasefire and in violation of it. The rules of engagement were to the effect that the American pilots could shoot at the Egyptians if the latter intercepted them, something that happened on a few occasions.

The result has been that Israel was able to put a few soldiers at the outskirts of the city of Suez, a place that had been vacated since the 1967 war, six years earlier. And it was this little piece of theatrics that the Israelis have been using to claim that they counterattacked the Egyptian army and won another war. Nobody in the world believes this claim except the Americans who get their information from a Jewish media that never explained why the Israelis are out of the Sinai and the Egyptians are in. Still, the consequence of an illusion to the effect that Israel is invincible is that when the time comes and Israel needs someone to bankroll it and/or die for it, the Americans agree to pay through the nose to enrich both domestic and foreign Jews, and go to foreign lands where they die to please those same characters.

COSI uncovered all that information and correlated it with another piece of information it deemed startling even to an artificial intelligence. It is that Edward Luttwak had once asserted that Barack Obama who was running to be President at the time was actually a Muslim who will be considered an apostate if he won the election. And the author predicted that Obama will most probably be assassinated by a fanatic.

Well, Obama won the election; he has been President for more than three years, was never called an apostate and no one has tried to assassinate him. Thus, COSI has concluded it must be that Luttwak was not writing an actual opinion piece in the WSJ but was outlining a script for a Hollywood movie that will combine the intrigue of someone attempting to assassinate a president with the action of a lovely little war. How sweet can life get on Planet Earth!

This is the message that COSI has sent to its home planet about life on Planet Earth.

They Hate Us Therefore We Are

Whether or not we are conscious of it all the time, we all have something that makes us tick. It may not rise to the level of the Descartes expression “I think therefore I am”, but the thing is here, and it gives us the impetus to soldier on amid the burden of daily living. To some people, the thing serves as a yardstick by which to compare themselves with someone else and thus measure their progress in life. To most other people, however, the thing is a belief they quietly keep to themselves. This is especially true with the people who expect that their thinking will alter as it evolves and goes through the different experiences to then fashion a new outlook on life.

It also happens that an organized group of people would at times formulate a shibboleth they inculcate in the people they seek to turn into followers. This is what a number of Jewish organizations do as they operate under the motto: We, the Jews are hated therefore we are. And when you begin with this idea, it leads to the argument that goes this way: We, the Jews have the right to be, to be protected by the state, by every state on the planet where there is a Jewish minority. Consequently, the policeman of the world that is America must commit the resources it has to impose that edict on all the nations of the world by force of arms if need be.

To develop these ideas into a solid and exhaustive presentation would require countless hours of research to look for and identify the moments, the speeches and the expressions that encapsulate the meaning of what should go into the presentation. Sometimes, however, out of the blue comes a miracle that dumps under your nose a treasure trove not of gold or precious stones but of manna that will satisfy a hungry mind craving solid material to work with. This is what happened to me the other day when I read an article in the National Review under the title “Arab like Me” signed by Lee Habeeb and published on February 15, 2012.

The article has the subtitle: “Maybe, just maybe, Arabs can break out of their self-destructive hatred and envy.” It told me right away that I shall find in this piece plenty of solid food for the mind to chew on. And sure enough, I discovered to my delight that “plenty” actually meant the near totality of the Jewish talking points I would have wanted to assemble in one place for the purpose of discussion. All the points were here as if the gods had probed my head, detected my secret wish, decided to be good to me for God knows what reason, and give me what I was looking for on one silver platter. I found in the Habeeb article not only the points that can demonstrate the nature and the aim of the Jewish shibboleth that makes the Jews tick but also how it all fits within the grand theory I have been developing in my head for some time.

What I see as grand theory is that every organism alternates between being in one of two possible states. It can be in the passive state or it can be in the active one depending on the environment in which it finds itself. If and when the natural order of things is maintained, the organism remains in a passive state to quietly enjoy what nature has to offer. If and when the natural order is disrupted, the organism goes into an active mode and works to restore the lost order. There is, in fact, a concise saying in the American vernacular that encapsulates this idea. It goes this way: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And this, of course, also means that when something breaks, you must roll up your sleeves and work to fix it.

From the most primitive organism up to and including the higher primates, the natural order of things is represented by nature itself and by the laws that make it work. But when it comes to the human species, the natural order of things can be represented by something we were born with, or something we have acquired through experience, or something that was inculcated in us by an outside agent. And each organism in its own way will move from the passive state to the active one to restore its order if and when it is disrupted. For example, the fruit-fly will always seek food, the bird will almost always repair its damaged nest, the monkey will prefer a banana over a book of poetry, and the human will sue to get back the supervisory position from which he was fired with cause or without one.

What this says about human beings is that they are prone to being taught to imagine an order of things that may or may not have existed in reality. But this order would be so real to some people that they can be motivated to sacrifice everything they possess, including their own life and that of others to recreate the order of their imagination and see it materialize. Such people will work diligently, even work fanatically as if they were restoring something that existed and was lost, or something that should have existed but was neglected by divine oversight. This is the sort of belief I see the Jewish organizations inculcate in the people they entice to follow them; the people they put to work on the pet project of the moment. This is what makes them so restless, always imagining a disorder in someone else's backyard they must fix with or without his consent.

At this moment in time, you find that the project on which the Jewish organizations are working, consists of strengthening a world of make-believe they have created to suit their purpose. Operating under the notion that they are hated therefore are facing a mortal danger, their current project is to get other people to join them in a crusade to bring more of them into the fold. The aim is to take to the world a gospel that speaks of an Israel which is battling a hateful humanity that is hell bent on annihilating Israel and all the Jews.

Thus, we see that Lee Habeeb finds it absolutely necessary to reveal a big secret to the world, particularly to the Obama administration, especially at this pivotal moment in history -- the start of the second year of the Arab Spring. Want to know what the secret is, my friend? Brace yourself because here it is: “There are two kinds of Arabs in this world … Those who hate Jews, and those who don't.” Get it? If not, here is the explanation: No people but the Arabs are split in their sentiments toward the Jews. As my friend – a survivor of the Holocaust with a tattooed number prominently shown on his arm -- used to say about the guards at the concentration camp: “If only they did not all look like blue eyed blonde Aryans, I might have thought of them as human beings doing a job they hate to do but forced to do it. But they were Aryans and they enjoyed making us suffer.” I wonder if Habeeb realizes that the Nazis hated the Jews and that the Jews returned the favor. Could it also be that there are Jews who hate Arabs? Any one Jew out there who may hate the Arabs? Is there one out there? Just one? Please speak up!

To make his point, Habeeb recounts an early experience he had when: “I wrote my first pro-Israel column for my college paper as a young student journalist.” There was a backlash that stunned him, he says, as a result of which: “I even thought ... of writing something negative about Israel … to balance things out...” Well, he didn't write something negative about Israel, and I do not know what would have happened if he did. But I had what you might call a mirror image kind of experience, and I know what happened. I had been in Canada about 3 years when the 1967 war broke in the Middle East. At a time when there was no such thing as political correctness, I would see in the media only one-sided articles describing the Arabs as being mad dogs, wounded animals, bloodthirsty savages and what have you.

I didn't think these guys loved us much but I did not bellyache. Instead, I wrote a very innocuous letter to the editor of the Toronto Star, and it was published sometime in 1968 under the inoffensive title: “Don't listen to propaganda, Egypt is a civilized country.” Surprise, surprise, I got a call from the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJG) who informed me that someone will come and talk to me. Having been baptized both a Copt and a Catholic, I called the Coptic priest of my parish to tell him what happened. He said he would be there at my house to see for himself what these people are up to. On the designated day, the man from the CJG came before the priest and so I said very little but listened a lot. He said I must be careful what I write because I could hurt myself going against what the Jews are trying to accomplish which is to foster understanding between them and the rest of society. The priest then came, and very little was said after that.

Unlike Lee Habeeb who contemplated writing something to balance things out, I did not entertain such thought because what was needed was not that I balance myself out but that I balance the tens of thousands of characters -- Jews and non-Jews alike -- who popped up all over the print and audio-visual media to compete against each other as they poured the rivers of anti-Arab venom held inside of them. And that was no ordinary venom because it was fueled by the molten lava of a volcano installed inside the belly of surrogate mothers, each vying to give birth to the most monstrous anti-Arab expression you could imagine. It was a horror show that lasted more than a decade. They didn't love us, these awful characters, even though they didn't know a thing about us and didn't know what they were supposed to hate. They just hated because the Jews instructed them to hate, lit the fires in bellies of some and erupted the volcanoes in the bellies of others.

And guess what happened when I refused to balance myself out? I was blacklisted but was advised that I would get what I merit if and only if I came to my senses and lent my name to an article that would sound very much like the one signed by Lee Habeeb. I told these people to go to hell, I sued them for thinking that I could be bribed and I gave them my finger, something I have been doing for nearly half a century now. And guess what, Lee Habeeb my dear “Arab” friend, you'll never know what a satisfying thing this is until you've tried it. In case you decide to make a move that will redeem you, let me assure you that you will feel as if you had come out of a Jewish sewer and dove into a sea made of cleansing soap and luxurious shampoo. You will feel clean, you will feel pure and you will feel good about yourself. It will be like going from a hell made of filth into a heaven made of freshness.

Will it be too difficult for Habeeb – or any other person for that matter -- to redeem themselves having gone to such extremes expressing an apparent hatred toward the Arabs and a fake love toward the Jews? Yes it should be difficult because these people have been inculcated with a multitude of subjects that were turned upside down. Much time will be consumed and much energy will be required to go over each item and turn it right side up. But luckily for us, there is an element of commonality here that we can use to make matters easy. It is that everything was turned upside down, and this makes it so that one simple rule can fix the problem. Because all that is good about the Arabs was attributed to the Jews; and all that is bad about the Jews was attributed to the Arabs, you may reverse everything that was shoved down your throat absent a push back, and you will find that everything has fixed itself.

For example, when you read in the Habeeb article something like this: “Arabs … are often pushed into a kind of groupthink, a kind of self-censorship...” you look around to see for yourself but hardly find someone representing the Arab side of the story, let alone a group of Arabs doing it. And so you wonder where this idea of groupthink came from. You then look to see who is representing the Jewish side of the story, and it is like stepping into an echo chamber with a million voices all barking the same thing over and over again, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year … year after year after year, decade after decade after decade. And you conclude that Lee Habeeb has lied to you because he was programmed to lie about these things. Well, he can do the same thing and look around to see for himself. He will realize that those who programmed him to lie are liars themselves, and perhaps conclude that the lies must now be reversed thus turned into truths.

You keep reading the Habeeb article and you meet this: “Say those words and … the subject turns to Israel. Always, it seems, it turns to Israel.” The truth is that the Jews in general, and the Israelis in particular adhere to the shibboleth: “We know we exist because they talk about us; and they talk about us because they hate us.” But the truth is that the last thing the Arabs want to do is waste time talking about the Jews or Israel. They usually don't but if provoked, they will. I have had to put up with this sort of absurdity myself since I started this website. People have accused me of devoting too much time writing about the Jews and Israel. When this happens, I respond like this: guess what I'm doing. I am only responding to articles that were written about Israel or the Jews. When no one provokes my ire with lies that are too pro-Israel or too anti-Arab, I write about other things. But rest assured, there are many out there who like to be provocative and thus, it looks like I'll be writing about the Jews and Israel for a long time to come. Not my fault; I'm innocent.

Here is another example where the truth has been turned on its head: “It is all about Arab self-doubt … a deep-seated fear that … Arabs won't be very good at the self-governance thing.” The fact is that for thousands of years, the Arabs have governed themselves and they did it very well. And for hundreds of years, they ruled over other cultures in Asia, Africa and Europe where they came to be accepted and appreciated as benevolent and kind and civilized rulers. By contrast, the Jews apparently governed themselves for less than a generation in ancient times after which they were kicked out of the place where they ruled. They were brought back to it later by Britain at which time they conducted themselves like ruffians again -- so much so that they lent credence to the saying: Jews can never govern themselves. This point was repeated many times throughout the centuries by people who realized that when your religion says you are the favorite child of god, you do not want to work or be told what to do. Consequently, you seek to live like a parasite at the expense of those who tolerate your sucking of their blood. This is why they cannot settle somewhere to prosper and multiply. And this is why there are so few of them even though they have been around longer than any other religion.

At some point in the middle of the article, Habeeb starts a paragraph like this: “To the dismay of Arabs … Jewish people turned an ancient piece of real estate ... into a thriving oasis...” The truth is that on a per capita basis, the money that was poured into Israel over the decades has exceeded (literally and I mean it, literally) by several orders of magnitude the money that went to develop say, Singapore or Dubai. Yet, if the American people were to force their government to stop pouring the money it borrows in their name and the name of their children into the black hole they call Israel, that distressing place will go into such a steep decline so fast, it will look worse than Sierra Leon in less than a year. The fact is that the people who call themselves Jews do not create wealth; they only accumulate and keep the wealth that someone else creates. To this day, Israel still receives what is called compensation but the money does not even go to the survivors of the Holocaust who live in abject poverty; it is looted by the people who are supposed to administer the program because they too would starve without it. Israel is an oasis of never ending pathetic poignancy, nothing else.

But you ask yourself why is it that Lee Habeeb brought up that point? And you find the reason a few paragraphs below: “This … friend … focuses on border disputes … I ask him why he is obsessed with the 1967 border dispute...” Habeeb makes this statement then goes into a one sided debate to explain why the world should allow the continued looting of Palestinian land by Israel. He then ties the idea of the borders with the subject of antisemitism, and he accuses the Arabs of being antisemitic. He does this despite the fact that it is the Jews who never cease to remind the Europeans and the Americans that modern Jews are no longer Middle Easterners but Europeans who settle in the Middle East to keep under check the real Middle Easterners who look non-white and have the ambition to invade Europe with the aim of changing its character -- something they will succeed in doing if Israel were to vanish. Believe it or not, my dear reader, all this and more is hidden in that one sided debate Habeeb was having with himself.

To be allowed to loot Palestinian land is an important issue in the roster of talking points that these people maintain. And they often tie the subject with something they like to say about Netanyahu since he is the foremost champion of the idea to expand Jewish settlements. This is what Habeeb does in his article, and here is how he does it: “Benjamin Netanyahu once gave a speech in which he pointed at a map of the Middle East. He rattled off many of the countries in the region 'Big countries,' he said. 'But small accomplishments.' He then went on to describe Israel … 'Little country,' he concluded. 'But big accomplishments.'” You get a sense of the subtle point that Netanyahu and Habeeb are trying to make if you are old enough to remember how and why the size of Israel entered the discussion in the late Sixties.

The Israelis and their mouth pieces in America used to say they want more land to use as a buffer zone between themselves and the Palestinian freedom fighters. They argued that the land must be wider than the range of the guns used by the Palestinians. But then came all sorts of new weapons (such as rockets, for example) that made this argument a moot one. This is when the Israelis and the mouthpieces changed their tune and started to talk about the Arabs having 22 countries while the Jews had only one. But this made it sound like they were envious of the Arabs, and so they quickly abandoned it. They changed their tune again to make it sound like it was the Arabs who were envious of the Jews. This is how and why they came up with the spin of the little country that has accomplished a lot versus the big countries that have accomplished little. They say this with one side of the mouth while the other side cries out: “Help us, America or we die of hunger. Compensate us, Germany or we starve to death.”

Now they have something new they can use to make the old argument and tell the world that it must let Israel loot more of the Palestinian lands. It is the Arab Spring which they use in this manner: “Today … The 'Arab Spring' is an opportunity like none the region has ever seen … But it is up to them to … make their own lives better that they will have little time left to burnish old grievances.”

What you see in that paragraph translates into this: Let bygone be bygone because: “Countries [are] built … on love, trust, shared sacrifice, and hard work.” But if you do this, you set a precedent on which they will pounce. They will grab it and use it to argue that because you have accepted to let them loot once, you must let them loot again – something they intend to do till they swallow all of Palestine.

Nothing can be more Jewish and more syphilitic morally than this. Lee Habeeb can claim all he wants that he may or may not be an Arab but those who call themselves reformed Jews say that you are a Jew if you feel you are one. Because Habeeb feels more Jewish than any Jew you will ever meet, he must be a reformed Jew of the first order and not an Arab if he ever was one.

End that crap, Lee. You have been unmasked.

Behold Not The Dogs Of War But The Dogs

If you ever doubted that the time had come to throw away the old relationship between Egypt and the United States, and either relaunch that relationship on a new path or part ways for good, a reading of an article written by Daniel Calingaert will convince you. The article comes under the title: “From Bad to Worse in Egypt” and was published on February 17, 2012 in the Wall Street Journal.

Calingaert is vice president of a Washington based outfit calling itself Freedom House that is no more free than the house of ill repute -- sometimes called the US Congress -- which is so thoroughly under the tyranny of Jewish rule, people the world over think of it as the private washroom of the Israeli leaders who make use of it when they visit the American capital. They use it the way that Netanyahu uses the rug at the White House, the one he transforms into a private urinal when he is not fighting over a turf with the dog of the first family.

The point of the Calingaert article is summed up in a subtitle that goes this way: “The repression of civil society is far worse than anything seen under Hosni Mubarak.” Bearing in mind that Freedom House is supposed to be some kind of a civil society, you wonder if the author is making a distinction between Egyptian civil society and the foreign groups that operate in the country. You go over the article and discover that he makes no distinction between the two except that – in his mind's eyes -- the Egyptian society is supposed to be subordinated to the foreign groups.

And the reason why Calingaert was prompted to write those words is that: “Egypt's military rulers have spent the last several months provoking U.S. and European ire with their crackdown on civil-society groups,” says the man. He later says that the “...assault on civil society [is] led by Ms. Naga and other holdovers of Hosni Mubarak's regime.” This part came just before he asserted that things were better under Hosni Mubarak, the notion that was echoed in the subtitle. Well, it looks to me that someone needs a lesson in coherent writing, in logic or in both.

But that is not the worst part because there is something even worse than that. Here it is: “Following a politically motivated investigation, 43 people … are about to face criminal charges for their work supporting a democratic transition in Egypt.” Look what a primitive mentality we have here. When you accuse someone of being politically motivated, you mean to say that someone apolitical going about their business was interfered with by someone having politics on their mind. But this is not the case, says the author, in that he asserts that the 43 people were working to support what he calls a democratic transition. This means that they were engaged in a political act which makes it that the response of the Egyptian government was entirely appropriate. Thus, to say otherwise is to be absurd, and this makes you wonder why the Egyptians need to keep in their midst a breed of men and women as inferior as these people who still believe they can tell them what to do?

The fact is that the Egyptian people don't want these foreign characters on their soil doing what they do. Their opposition to America's meddling in their affairs has existed for decades, and has not abated one iota since the Revolution. In fact, they overwhelmingly support the effort of the government to clean up the old mess as it is being done by Ms, Naga who is determined to put an end to the madness of foreign interference in the politics of Egypt. Furthermore, the just elected members of the new parliament have warned the government and all those in it not to interfere with the judicial process that is overseeing this matter. They want to see justice take its course because they want Egypt to remain a nation of laws in reality and not in name only as is the case when it comes to America's respect for international law.

You feel satisfied having dismissed these characters as an inferior breed of men and women who are wallowing in a pool of ignorance. But then you get hit in the face with a cry that says: “Why be so generous?” You get back to reading the article and find this passage: “What is all the more stunning is that the SCAF ... receives $1.3 billion in U.S. aid annually ... Egypt also needs U.S. and European support to secure a $3.2 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund to stem its downward economic spiral since the revolution.” Having falsely described their activity as being apolitical, these low life characters now threaten to stop contributing the 1.3 billion dollars they were making toward the maintenance of peace in the region. Hallelujah would say the Egyptian people because they sensed they were getting the short end of the stick by this deal and they wanted out.

But the matter does not stop here because when it comes to cowardly behavior, a bigger threat always follows a smaller one. This time, the barking dogs have threatened to repeat the performance of their ancestors when the latter pressured the World Bank to refuse loaning Egypt the money to build the Aswan hydroelectric station. Six decades later, the grandchildren of those dogs threaten that their government will work on the IMF to repeat the performance that changed the history of the Middle East, set their country on a course similar to what ended the British empire, and see to it that America is dragged into a Middle Eastern political quagmire that will be no less destructive than the military quagmire which was Vietnam. It must be that when you are as primitive and backward as these people, you never learn from your mistakes but keep repeating them over and over till you find yourself flat on your face. How much farther down will you go, America?

The people of Egypt have seen enough by now to know that it is America which needs to be liberated not them. They know what freedom is and know how to get it back when it slips their finger as it happened countless times over the thousands of years that they have existed as a nation. By contrast, the Americans who have been around for scarcely a few centuries have already lost their freedom to a degree that would have made a dog start a rebellion to free itself. And yet, the Americans don't seem to even realize they are serving their Jewish masters as would a nation of psychologically subjugated slaves.

When you come right down to it, you find that to interfere with the business of someone else used to go against the grain of the old American ideal. What has changed is that America's new masters want to be masters of the world and so, they use their newly subjugated slaves to go out and try to subjugate everyone else so as to bring everyone into the fold under the dominance of their Jewish masters. What this means is that the stance of the people of Egypt is one that will not only maintain their freedom but also free the Americans from the yoke of Jewish tyranny. In fact, it will be good for the whole world. Go Egypt go!

Christmas In February With Tricks And No Treat

On the twelfth day of February, the New York Times gave us the editorial: “Egypt's Unwise Course”. On the thirteenth day of February, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) gave us Alan Dershowitz. On the fifteenth day of February, the same WSJ gave us Daniel Schwammenthal. Yes, this is the year 2012 but no, it is not Christmas in February though it may feel like it for a moment when you consider the gifts that came wrapped in those three pieces of writing. Look at the title of the Dershowitz article: “Warning Iran Against Hitting 'Soft' American targets.” The fact is that America does not need to warn someone against attacking it; everyone knows that if attacked, America will hit back, and hit back hard.

So then, what was the purpose of that article to begin with? Obviously, it was written for the mysterious gift it carries inside it. Now consider its subtitle: “The Obama administration should deem an attack on a synagogue or embassy as tantamount to a military attack on the U.S.” The mystery deepens, does it not? Now look at the title of the Schwammenthal article: “Containment Won't Work Against Iran” and the subtitle: “Mutually assured destruction might be more of an incentive than a deterrent for Ahmadinejad and those around him.” How is that you ask? As a possible response to your question, you find the following assertion buried deep inside the article: “Iran lacks second-strike capability and Israel is too small to absorb a nuclear attack.” What? Is this guy saying that Israel must now prove to the world it has no nuclear weapons, and thus save itself from a nuclear holocaust lest Iran decide to do short work with it using a one and only strike against it? We are intrigued as to what gift this guy is about to give us?

But the real gift is that the three pieces employ arguments by authors who known they are so absurd, they fail to make a point (any point at all) that is serious. This tells the reader he or she should overlook the superficial meaning of the arguments and seek instead to turn up the hidden messages in them. Look at this vacuous logic in the Times editorial: “In Egypt [no] group receives more money from foreign sources than the military … Yet, the generals … have [gone] against civil society groups that … get far less...” Believe it or not, this was written in one of the oldest and most prestigious publications in America where at least two former Presidents in recent memory – Nixon and Clinton – came close to being crucified for accepting gifts from foreigners they failed to declare.

As to the Dershowitz article, it is so uncharacteristically rambling, it is hard to make heads or tails reading it, but like the essay of a kid who spends the night at the arcade then sits down in the wee hours of the morning to do his homework, you can still get the essence of what a tired mind is trying to communicate. Let us, therefore, do just that by first looking at the absurd and unnecessary part: “An attack on an American synagogue is no different than an attack on the World Trade Center or on American aviation. We correctly regarded those attacks as acts of war … and we responded militarily. All American citizens, regardless of their religious affiliations, are equally entitled to the protection of the American military.” Well, the fact is that America does not need to be reminded how it responded to the events of 9/11. So then, what was the purpose of having this unnecessary passage in the first place?

We get a sense of the purpose of that passage when we go back to the start of the article and, once again, navigate our way through the atrocious ramblings we encountered in several paragraphs early on, while trying this time to figure out what the author is trying to build up to. Doing this, we find a pathetic attempt to put together an argument that will satisfy both the American laws and the international laws with the view that if Iran responds to an Israeli terrorist attack against it, America must automatically and reflexively respond to the Iranian response by attacking Iran's nuclear installations. Oh yes, we see it now, it is the return of that same old Israeli obsession which is reflected in that same old incitement, the one that has always been propagated by the Jewish lobby in America. The difference this time, is that the incitement is gift-wrapped inside a new package.

What is common to the three pieces of writing is that they carry inside them, and they propound a philosophy around them that is far removed from what the American government, from what its institutions and from what its people want now or have ever wanted throughout the history of their republic. In fact, what America wants now and has always wanted is a peaceful world in which everyone is entitled to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The stance is called isolationism by some people, and called non-interventionism by other people but it is what it is. On the other hand, what the authors of those three articles seek to achieve is a world that is dominated by an America which is itself dominated by them – whoever they are, whatever they are and wherever they live.

But how do they do what they do? you ask. Looking for an answer to this question, you find that the New York Times has found a novel way to spread its gibberish hokum among its readers. But in reality, is it that much of a gibberish? and is it that much of a hokum? Look what's happening here, the NY Times begins by asking a question in the name of the readers: “Their [rulers of Egypt] paranoid argument?” It then responds like this: “That the groups – which do voter and poll-worker training among other things – are 'foreign hands' out to destroy Egypt … The generals portray themselves as defenders of the country's sovereignty.” Wow! Look at that! What a hidden grand message in them words! What a supreme gift to us!

You see, my friend, to suggest that Egypt's current rulers are not the defenders of Egypt's sovereignty but that the foreign hands who came into the country to do things behind their backs are, is to advocate the replacement of those rulers by the foreign hands. And this is to advocate a regime change – not of an Egyptian you dislike by another Egyptian you may like – but of an Egyptian you dislike by a foreigner that is imported into the country from abroad. You bolt, saying to yourself this is it, and you decide that you have seen enough of what comes out the brain, the soul (or is it the rear end of the Times editors?); and because you deem that what you just witnessed is worth less than what comes out the rear end of a dog suffering from diarrhea, you end your analysis of the Times editorial here and now, thus save yourself from having to continue smelling a stink you can no longer bear. And down the toilet where it belongs goes the NY Times. And to think that you were so hopeful as to believe for a moment there was a valuable gift wrapped in this package; it is amazing.

But realizing that regime change is what these people have just advocated for Egypt, it hits you that regime change is what they advocated for Iran on previous occasions except that the change never came. So then, what do they advocate for Iran at this time? You find the answer to this question at the very end of the Dershowitz article. Here is how he put it: “As George Washington … counseled … 'To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.'” But the world knows that America is not only prepared for war, it is in a permanent state of war with somebody at any given time. Dershowitz understands this but you find him saying just before he gave his last counsel that: “...for deterrence to succeed … the threat of military action must be credible.” But here too, the world knows that America has “all options on the table.” What more does this man, and all those like him want from America?

You find the answer to that question in this passage: “The U.S. government should deem any Iranian attack against Israeli or Jewish ... targets … to be an armed military attack on the U.S. – to which the U.S. will retaliate militarily … Washington should not treat such an attack as the Argentine authorities did, merely a criminal act.” So that's what it's all about; and the way it will work is this: Israel will steal or forge Canadian and New Zealand passports which it will give to agents who will use them to travel and do something criminal in the name of Israel, something that will provoke Iran. When the latter will retaliate by committing an act that will be similar in nature and proportional to the provocation, America will call it an act of war and pounce on Iran, unleashing a massive and disproportionate attack on its nuclear facilities. What can be more Jewish and more syphilitic morally than to ask for something like this?

But to pull it off and hope to fool the world, you need to justify it, especially if you are a lawyer urging your suggestion on a superpower that pretends to be a nation of laws. In fact, this is the spot in which Dershowitz found himself and for which he tried to do fancy footwork that unfortunately did not work for him. He put it this way: “...the legal justification for such an attack would be … predominantly pre-emptive or preventive, though it would have reactive elements as well, since Iran has armed our enemies in Iraq and caused the death of many American soldiers.” Come again, Alan baby! You are counseling America to respond to a criminal act by launching a massive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities under the pretext that years previous, the Iranians helped the fighters of a neighboring country defend themselves when America invaded them under the false pretense that they had developed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons? Whoa! There is no doubt that the world will dismiss this idiocy because it will see it as a moral syphilis of the most Jewish kind, the kind that only a Dershowitz can formulate and still maintain a straight face.

As to that guy Schwammenthal, you look for the gift inside his package and discover this: “But will any country rely on Western promises to protect them from a nuclear Iran after the same promises failed to curtail a conventionally armed Iran?” And you ask yourself is this a trick or a treat? And you decide after a moment of deep reflection that it is a trick because these are the people who continually tell the Americans not to worry about what the world thinks of them, and add this: “Just go ahead and do what you need to do because then, everything will fall into place as they should, and the world will come to love you, respect you and most importantly, fear you.”

However, when these people have a shaky argument they wish to present, and when they know not how to convince America to send its children to fight and die for them, they tell the superpower that if it did not do what they ask, it will lose what valuable credibility it may have in the eyes of the world. What chutzpah! What hubris! What gall!

And then you come to the sad conclusion that this is not Christmas in February; it feels more like a spooky Halloween moment full of tricks.

Jewish Mammas Producing Eunuchs

The current generation and the one before it have not known a time when the Jewish male was thought to be the sissy who went nowhere without his mamma. In fact, obeying mamma's directives to the letter used to be the norm for the Jewish male who was seen to be permanently clutching to her skirt, even after he had grown and become an adult. This was true even though the Jewish family was supposed to be a patriarchal one according to the scriptures it followed. In these scriptures, the male of a group is said to have a pecking order higher than that of the females no matter how young he is and how old they are. Also, his opinion supersedes that of any of them including his own mother.

But a reversal hit the Jewish family because of something that happened in Europe during the Middle Ages. It was then that the tenets of the Jewish religion, as described in the scriptures, were turned upside down; and the principles of male supremacy maintained in name only. In real life, the Jewish male was made into the weak element inside his own family by a society at large that did not trust him. It happened that shortly after the arrival of the Jews into Europe, a perception was formed about the males of the group as being a breed of conniving and treacherous operators. Anticipating that the male will be disruptive, and fearing his method of operation, the native Europeans shunned him personally and prohibited him from holding any job that would give him a path to a higher income, to power or to influence.

Unable to provide adequately for his family, the influence of the Jew weakened considerably inside it, and the power shifted to the matriarch whose job was to make ends meet on the patriarch's meager income. And when the Europeans “discovered” the new world -- America among them -- they settled down to forge a life that came as close as possible to what they had in Europe. This called for the maintenance of the relationships they had with each other in the old world, including the ethnic and sectarian prejudices they held there as well as the rules they had for the Jews. Consequently, there was a time in America when the Jew was forbidden from holding a job in banking, teaching, government and the rest. Eventually, discrimination was made illegal in that country, and the Jews started to enjoy the same rights as everyone else. This opened the door for the Jewish male to be his old self again with consequences that are still in the making but promise already to be anything but cheerful.

In fact, what transpired during the last half of the Twentieth Century was that the Jewish male was given the opportunity to re-reverse the trend and to reclaim the alpha ranking he used to enjoy before he settled in Europe. If he did not entirely succeed in regaining his old status inside the family, he did manage to upgrade his image a notch or two in the eyes of society at large. More accurately, he succeeded in that endeavor in only a few places around the world, among them the English speaking nations. This development allowed him to curb the Rodney Dangerfield lament: “I don't get no respect,” and replace it with the boast: “Look at me, I can engineer the dissing of a former President.” And this is where the idea of the Jew being the conniving and treacherous operator began to germinate again; this time in America. As you can see, old habits die hard, the reason why what goes around comes around no matter how long it takes, no matter how far it goes.

Moreover, when you look closely at what the generic Jewish male has achieved so far, you find that he has only managed to regain a precarious sort of respect; one that appears for a short period of time to vanish again as if in a cycle. It happens when a Jewish individual does something extraordinary for which he is honored and allowed to take the Jewish brand on his coattail to give it a free ride. But when the celebration ends so does society's high esteem for the Jew. And there is an irony here worth mentioning. It is that the generic Jewish male tends to gain respect not as a result of efforts he made but efforts that were made by the acknowledged Jewish mamma of all time: Golda Meir of Israel. This was the woman they referred to as the only man in the cabinet; a nickname she kept till she became Prime Minister and had the opportunity to build up the reputation of being one tough cookie in her own right.

But there is more because if this is an irony, it pales when compared with the greater irony of the respect that was not heaped on the Israeli soldiers who fought the wars under Golda Meir or someone else, but heaped on the Jewish American males who remained in America and talked glowingly about those wars from afar. Indeed, what kept happening in war after war was that the armchair warriors of America associated themselves with the Israeli soldiers so completely that they blurred the two images and made themselves look like heroes of wars they never fought. Worse, the fake scenario of Jewish heroism was being told in America at a time when the authentic Israeli soldiers were busy at home and elsewhere repudiating the wars in which they just fought, making it clear that these were horrible events, no one should describe in glowing terms.

But to go from having the status of a castrated Rodney who lacks respect to being so potent as to diss an American President, the Jewish American male had to convince the American people that Israel won all the wars – ancient and modern -- thus give credence to a new gospel which says that the Jews are superior beings who deserve to be worshiped like gods. Indeed, the Jewish male was able to accomplish all this by attracting surrogates who gladly surrounded him for reasons of their own, absorbed the ideas of the new gospel and metastasized them by taking them to the rest of society where they spread like an infection.

This done, the Jewish male put down a number of principles by which he plotted to take control of the American superpower, make it his exclusive dominion and use it as a vehicle by which to establish a worldwide Pax Americana that would in reality be a Pax Judaica. Thus, what the Europeans of the Middles Ages had erroneously thought was the hidden agenda of all the Jewish people was now being implemented in the open not by all Jews but by a leadership that appointed itself to realize the old dream. And these leaders are now so confident of what they do, they no longer charge it is antisemitic to say the Jews control this or that, but say it in your face: Yes, we do control this and we do control that; so what!

How do they do it? Well, the Jewish leaders have adopted a number of principles, one of which they use often and use with some success. It is to think of something they want to do, anticipate the response it will solicit and prepare a counter response that will deal not only with the situation at hand but deal automatically with all similar situations when they occur in the future without the need for further intervention by them. For example, in order to tightly monopolize America, these people needed to prevent the government officials and others from talking to the Palestinians. Thus, instead of having to make a presentation each time that a meeting is about to take place between the Americans and the Palestinians, the Jewish leaders thought of a way to make the abstinence from talking to the Palestinians a dogma that has the force of a religious belief; one that must never be violated or even questioned.

To accomplish this, they took advantage of the feeble minds that occupied the White House at the time, and they argued that because the Americans were battling the armed al-Qaeda fighters who attacked America out of Afghanistan, it would serve moral clarity if the Israeli invaders were allowed to ravage and loot the native Palestinians with impunity. The Jewish leaders went on to stuff the empty skulls at the White House with the notion that the Israeli invaders had the right to expect being welcomed with flowers and kisses, not met with the terrorist act of stones being thrown at them by women and children as they peacefully rode their assault tanks into the walls of the homes occupied by those godawful women and children. How is that for superior moral clarity of the Jewish kind! And how is that for primitive and inferior thinking on the part of the Americans!

And guess what happened after that. The imbeciles at the White House of the time said amen to all that, and they initiated a procedure to make it so that to talk to the Palestinians or to deal with them in any way became an offense akin to violating a religious dogma. And the prescribed punishment was so severe, it was meant to be like spending time in hell listening to a W talk about moral clarity of the Jewish kind. And so I ask you this, my friend, who now dares to doubt that the freedom guaranteed by the American Constitution can produce thinking of such brilliance, no one else on this planet may come close to it? It is no wonder, therefore, that the European leaders saw fit to emulate America and enact similar legislation with regard to the Palestinians who dare to defend themselves. The saving grace here is that despite their leaders, the ordinary people of Europe are beginning to see that their ancestors were justified to fear the Jews among them. The developments they see materialize in America and around them prove to them that the Jew must be isolated in order to protect themselves and their country from his destructive methods. It is that the Jewish leaders brought it on themselves and their people; no one else was ever responsible for any of that.

Another principle that the Jewish leaders in America have managed to enforce was that no matter what happens, they will always be able to make the world believe they own the American Congress so completely, and they operate it so tightly as to obtain a bipartisan and unanimous vote favorable to Israel each and every time. To do this, they manipulate the existing setup and they create the theatrics that give the world the illusion of bipartisanship and unanimity. What they do is pervert the quorum rule in such a way as to assemble a handful of clowns with at least one of them being from each party (preferably the chairman of a committee), then vote to adopt resolutions that tell the world the US Congress is a urinal inside a whorehouse where a Jewish leader can go to empty his bladder and get a massage on his way out. I wonder if this act of pornography will spill over to the European parliament and turn that institution into a Jewish urinal like the American Congress. Please don't, the world stinks like hell already; a duplicate congress will only serve to flush humanity down the toilet of infamy.

Another principle that the Jewish leaders were able to create and to enforce was the perversion of the judicial system, though they did not always succeed brilliantly in this department. In fact, they once attempted to do something terrible here in Canada. They tried to use an executive tribunal to create a precedent that would have forced the courts of law to make judgments favoring the Jewish point of view each and every time. This would have been the outcome not because the judges saw merit in the cases they handled but because they would have been guided by the precedents that the Jews artificially engineered beforehand. Had the Jewish organizations succeeded in this project, they would have turned the administration of justice on its head, and brought a new holocaust on the head of all Jews – so said a prominent Jewish lawyer I knew well.

Where the Jewish leaders succeeded in having it their way for a while was the time when they used the power of the associations that group the lawyers and the judges to publicly denounce the lawyers who took cases that the Jewish organizations deemed must be denied legal representation. Their aim was to intimidated the lawyers and to force them to walk away from their clients. But this was a stance so contrary to the principles of justice -- ranging from being equal under the law to being innocent till proven guilty – that the Jewish project had only a temporary effect and was abandoned. But something else had a more permanent effect, especially in the United States of America. It was the use of the media as a vehicle to intimidate the lawyers who represent foreign governments that the Jewish lobby dislikes.

A case in point is that of three lawyers, each of which was paid a thousand dollars a day by the Egyptian government to represent its interests in America. When the opportune time came, the Jewish media went to interview these lawyers -- a standard Jewish method to start a public campaign of intimidation – and thus put pressure on the lawyers to confuse the issue and mess up the professional service they were supposed to provide to their client. The reflexive response of one lawyer to a stupid question posed to him was that the lawyers only represent their clients but do not necessarily condone their actions.

Whether or not the Egyptians knew that something like this was routinely taking place in America, is not clear. But this was enough for them to realize that the Jewish moral syphilis had infected the American judicial system as it did the other branches of government as well as the media, that fourth estate. And so they immediately canceled the contracts they had with those lawyers, which is the best thing they did for themselves and for their budget.

Even a cursory look at the activities of the Jewish leaders would indicate that they do what they do only because they can do it, in the same way that people would climb a mountain because it is there. Unlike most other people, however, the Jews never think of the consequences of what they do because they believe that if something will go wrong, God will be there to bail them out and fix everything like He always promised He will do. But history shows that God never prevented a pogrom or a holocaust from being inflicted on the Jews.

Hell, He never even bothered to prevent their castration into mamma's little boys.