Behold the Hand of Prince of Darkness

Look how the prince of darkness moves his stealthy hand to commit evil, believing that no one realizes what he is doing. Thus, I invite you to imagine the moves he makes as being scenes in a stage play that is written in several acts.

In the opening scene, the audience is introduced to a character named MB: “MB was ousted from power. His detractors are many, but it is the Coptic Christians that he is scapegoating.” As we see in a subsequent scene, MB turns out to be a bad guy because: “In Marsa Matrouh, MB supporters tried to destroy the Church of the Virgin Mary but soldiers of the Egyptian army chased them away.”

The bad behavior does not stop here because we see the following activities in a subsequent scene: “MB supporters attempt to storm churches in Qena but the police and military use tear gas to disperse them.” And we see a repeat of that scene in another city: “It also happened in Luxor but there too, the Egyptian police and military dispersed the supporters leaving 13 injured.”

So then, does that mean we should praise the Egyptian police and military for doing their job? Or should we condemn them; and warn them; and blackmail them; and seek to demoralize them? Apparently the latter is what the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom got together with the National Review Online (NRO) to advocate. They discovered a guy who goes by the name Girgis Naiem, and got him to write an article under the title: “Scapegoating the Copts” and the subtitle: “Islamist violence against Coptic Christians will undermine Egypt's democratization.” And they had the article published in NRO on July 31, 2013.

It is clear that the Hudson Institute and the NRO are playing the role of Prince of Darkness using Girgis Naiem as a tool to commit their evil deeds. And from the looks of it – reading the first paragraph – you can tell that this guy Naiem is not endowed with a high IQ. The first thing he does is tell the readers that some Media Institute has reported something about an article that appeared on a website which belongs to MB. This man has no idea that hearsay is not a convincing tool when used in an argument. But when you are presented with the hearsay of a hearsay of a hearsay … well, you know what to do with this argument.

Still, based on this third generation hearsay, the author draws what should have been either an ultimate conclusion or the start of a discussion that is different from what he gave us. Here is that conclusion in his words: “Attacking the Copts will prove to be as destructive to Egypt as to the religious minority itself.” You can see a hint in this revelation that those who pretend to be followers of MB may have motives other than hurting the Copts for the sake of hurting them. The writer amplifies this idea in the paragraph that follows: “the MB rejected the invitation to be part of the political process … intent on regaining power [by] stirring political unrest and negotiating reconciliation on its own terms.”

He goes on to cite examples of incidents that – even if taken at face value – amount to very little in the context of a revolution that has lasted two and half years in a nation of 90 million people. Having done this, he reiterates the two points that demolish the thesis he is struggling in vain to illustrate. First, he inadvertently praises the military: “The MB, bereft now of political power can't afford a long battle with the military.” Second, he cites at least two reasons other than hurting the Copts for the MB followers to want to commit acts of violence: “to prove that the new regime is grossly inept, and the further decline of an economy that depends on tourism … In a word, Egypt would be rendered ungovernable.”

He now asks the question: Why pick on the Copts? Well, there are many of them, he says, which makes them an easy target. And without telling the reader how the Christians came to be this many in Egypt; a region where the Christians are so few, he goes on to basically tell the Muslim extremists something dangerous if not outright criminal. Before I go on, let me explain something to you, my dear reader. This man's name Girgis (French spelling for the Egyptian Guergues which is Ptolemaic-Coptic for the Greek Gregorious) tells you that he is a Copt. Thus, he could not have come up with what follows. And what follows is to tell the extremists why they must no longer tolerate the Christians among them. It is therefore my belief that what follows is purely the work of the evildoers at the Hudson Institute and the editors of NRO.

Here is that passage expressed in gibberish as you can see. And yet, it carries the demonic message of the Prince of Darkness in its raw form: “other Islamist groups empower themselves through propaganda equating Christianity with the West and portraying the Copts as foreigners or separatists who seek Western intervention, a new Crusade; government authorities, for whom violence against the religious other can be a nation-building exercise and who need a safety valve and distraction for the impoverished masses; and socially disadvantaged Muslims, who alleviate their own sense of inferiority by persecuting Copts.” The language may be that of Girgis but the thought is that of Hudson and NRO.

Finally, the man pulls the classic trick of shooting himself in the foot before ending. Look at this: “Many groups – women, artists, small-business owners, liberal students, impoverished youths, leftist activists – had peacefully demonstrated … But it is the Copts who expect to pay the price for having dared to engage in peaceful protest.” Did he say “expect” to pay the price? Have they not paid it yet?

Aside from that, is he saying there is a difference between peacefully demonstrating, and daring to engage in peaceful protest? Or is he saying the Copts are made to look different from the women, the artists, the business owners, the students, the youths and the activists?

What if any of the latter were Copt? Would they be peacefully demonstrating or would they be engaging in peaceful protest? A puzzle for you to solve, my friend.

Dogmas Clouding Sound Economic Judgment

Sheldon Richman has a website called Future of Freedom Foundation on which he published an article under the title: “The Economic Lesson Obama Needs to Learn.” It happened on July 25, 2013. Three days later, on July 28, a magazine called Reason republished the article under the same title, but also gave it a subtitle that reads as follows: “Freedom, not regulation, is what the U.S. needs right now.”

What is interesting about this article is that it shows how an economic argument you can use in a situation where it would make sense, is often turned into rigid dogma, and used – more like misused – in a situation where it does not belong; where it makes no sense. This is a mistake often committed, sometimes deliberately and sometimes not, by people usually referred to as advocates of Supply Side economics.

The arguments most often misused by these people revolve around the role that the government plays in the economy. And the most glaring of such misuse happens when they describe the government as being only a consumer of resources or worse, a “squanderer” of resources. This is how Richman made his presentation: “first, government is a major squanderer of scarce resources.” He went on to say: “and second, its regulations are impediments to saving and investment” which is probably what prompted the editors of the magazine Reason to add the subtitle about the U.S. being in need of freedom, not regulation at this time.

The fact is that individuals, companies and governments are all economic units that do two things at the same time: they produce and they consume. The first person to fully grasp this concept was Henry Ford who discovered that he can supply the marketplace with all the cars he wants, but they will not go anywhere unless there are consumers out there with a high enough purchasing power to buy the cars and pay for them. And so, Henry Ford had the good sense to start paying his workers enough money so that they may buy the cars they produce, and he sends out to the marketplace.

That point made clear, it shows that unless there is a match between the two sides of the economy – the supply side and the consumption side – the economy will only be as good as the weaker of the two sides. That is, if you can supply 5 billion dollars worth of goods and services but that the consumer has only 4 billion dollars to spend, you will only generate 4 billion dollars worth of economic activities. And, of course, should the situation be reversed whereby the supply side can only produce 4 billion dollars worth of goods and services – well, this will only be how much activities you will generate no matter how much purchasing potential the consumer has.

And this is where the government enters the picture. It can happen at times that the consumers will get ahead of themselves and spend more money than they can afford by borrowing more than they should. When they realize they have gone too far, they curtail their borrowing and spending binge; moves that create and sustain the famous “economic cycle” which no one has yet been able to repeal.

And what this says ultimately is that the marketplace is not as efficient as it is claimed to be by the advocates of Supply Side economics. In fact, being driven primarily by fear and by greed, the marketplace continually makes mistakes that require the sort of corrective action it cannot itself produce without making matters even worse.

When the economic activities turn very quiet, the production part of the economy is put at risk because it cannot sell what it has the capacity to produce. Rather than see it operate below capacity and perhaps degenerate from there, the government steps in and starts consuming to make up for what the public is not doing. But this is only one of the ways by which the government helps the supply siders stay healthy while the economy is staggering.

The government also intervenes when new opportunities are made available as a result of scientific and/or technological breakthroughs. In such cases, large expenditures would be called for upfront while promising results that will not materialize for several decades. For this reason, only the government would be in a position to take the risk, and assume the early expenditures. For example, it will help launch projects the size of the national railway system, the network of highways or the program to explore space among others. And when the thing begins to run at a cost that the private sector can handle, the project is handed over to those who can run it privately.

All in all, because people are realizing that an economy is too complex to be either this one thing or that one, it is increasingly happening in America and around the world that private/public partnerships are formed to launch and run projects that initially require the economic clout of the government and the business savvy of the private sector. And projects of this kind are proliferating because they are showing good results.

In short, people everywhere are realizing that an economy is too complex to be reduced to the simplicities of a political argument. And the sooner the Supply Siders in America will remove themselves from the tendency to look at economics from the point of view of political dogma, the better they will guaranty the future of free enterprise in their country.

On the Fair Distribution of Wealth

In his July 24, 2013 speech, the American President Barack Obama made repeated reference to what may be called the fair distribution of wealth. What is that? Well, the best way to answer the question is to look at a fictitious example and draw inferences from it.

Let us say that the United Nation appoints you goodwill ambassador to go to the most primitive regions of the World and prepare the people there for the development that is moving in their direction, and the modern way of life that is about to hit them. To avoid seeing these people experience the famous “culture shock” that may disrupt their sense of cohesion, the UN gives you unlimited resources to do as you see fit.

You will have a printing press that will print real money you can distribute among the inhabitants. You will have a staff that will remain in touch with the rest of the world to order anything you ask for. And whatever you need will be shipped to you right away anywhere you find yourself.

Upon this, you go into a village where 12 families are established. You notice that they live mostly on the meat of the migrant birds and animals that pass through the area once in a while. But this happens so sporadically, that the people are forced to go through periods of feast and periods of famine – unable to control their destiny. You tell them they can have the control they yearn for if they will adopt some of the modern ways of living you came to tell them about. They say they are interested, and you start delivering your lesson.

You tell them that when the birds and the animals are abundant, they can eat well but they can also save some of the meat for when the birds and the animals do not come. They can do so because there is something called refrigerators, a number of which will be brought to the village. To this end, you instruct your staff to order refrigerators of the kind which are powered with solar panels during the day, and powered with the burning of animal fat during the night.

Because you also want the people of the village to learn about finance, you print some dollars and tell the head of each family that he or she can have a refrigerator only in exchange for money. You reassure them that you will show them later what they must do to earn the money. But for now, you will distribute the money among them so that they see how they can go about buying a refrigerator.

The first thing you do is probe the people to see if they can count. To your surprise, you discover they are good with numbers, even proficient in what some people in the advanced world might call “high” arithmetic. You start with the first lesson by giving each of them one dollar. You say there are 12 of you, each has one dollar, and there are 12 refrigerators. How much will each of you pay to buy a refrigerator? And they all agree each will pay one dollar to buy one refrigerator.

You take back the dollar bills and give each of them 100 dollars in various denominations. You ask: How much will each of you now pay for a refrigerator? And they answer 100 dollars. Very good, you say, but you let them know that unfortunately, you do not expect to receive 12 refrigerators. There may only be 6 of them coming to the village. What will they do? They think about it for a moment, and someone says: I shall get together with my sister and bid 200 dollars for a refrigerator we will share between us.

You ask if the others will do the same, and four more heads of family say they have a brother or a sister with whom they will share a refrigerator. This leaves two unrelated families who are nevertheless good neighbors, and they decide they will pool their money to buy one refrigerator to use between them. But you caution the people of the village that all the refrigerators are not here yet except for 2 which are in storage near the village. The other 4 may take a long time before they come. And 6 more after that may or may not come.

You now grab the basket that was sitting beside you filled with money. You walk to the people and randomly clutch fistfuls of bills that you hand to each head of family. When all the money is given out, you get back to the podium and say to the people you don't know how much each of them has, but there are 2 refrigerators on which they can start to bid.

One head of family says he has 300 dollars, and he bids that much for one refrigerator. Another head says he has 500 dollars, and he bids for the other refrigerator. A third head says he has 1,000 dollars, and he bids for the first refrigerator thus topping the person who bid 300 dollars. A fourth head says he only has 200 dollars which means he must be out of the bidding game. The fifth says he only has 250 dollars, and he too must be out. The sixth head of family joyfully declares that he has 3,000 dollars, and he bids 1,500 dollars for each of the 2 refrigerators. He will take them both, leaving nothing for the other people.

Someone in the audience cries out this game is unfair. And you ask: Why is it unfair? The answer comes back: “Because of the way that the money was distributed.” Upon this, a general discussion ensues during which time two important points are made. First, it is pointed out that a more equitable way must be found to distribute the money than just handing it out. Second, it is reckoned that the person who will get the two refrigerators will never have to go out and hunt again because he can now store the meat for the others who will have to pay him with some of what they catch. This one has got it made; he is set for life.

And this is when the people of the village ask you: How is the money distributed where you come from? You scratch your head, and you admit to the people of the village you're not sure it is done in a fair way. But you have something in this regard they may wish to hear for themselves. You tell them it is the recording of a speech given by President Obama of the United States of America. Here are some passages:

“I spent a year traveling and listening to stories of workers losing their jobs, of teachers whose salaries weren't keeping up with the rising cost of groceries, of young people who had the drive and the energy but not the money to afford a college education. These were stories of families who worked hard but felt like the odds were stacked against them. In an earlier period, whether you owned a company or swept its floor, this country offered you a sense that your hard work would be rewarded with fair wages.”

“But over time that engine began to stall. Washington doled out bigger tax cuts to the very wealthy and smaller minimum wage increases for the working poor. Used to be that as companies did better, as profits went higher, workers also got a better deal. And that started changing. So the income of the top 1 percent nearly quadrupled, but the typical family's incomes barely budged.”

“So in many ways, the trends that I spoke about of a winner-take-all economy where a few are doing better and better while everybody else just treads water – that's a problem. This growing inequality not just of result but inequality of opportunity is not just morally wrong; it's bad economics because when middle-class families have less to spend, businesses have fewer consumers and the economy as a whole suffers.”

And the people of the village ask you if this is what you're bringing to them. You admit you're not sure it's the best thing in the world but it is unavoidable. So get used to it.

The Self-Haters of America Are Speaking

“Egypt's military should hear from Obama administration” screams the title of the July 27, 2013 editorial in the Washington Post. It is a cry that came out the mouth of people who practically told Obama to shut up when he spoke about Trayvon Martin, a murdered teenager who could have been his son. The difference between the two situations is that in the latter case, the killer was a Jew – one of those whom the editors of the Washington Post get down on their knees and give a prolonged blow job; a condition they accept to have a job and keep it.

And because they hate themselves for what they have become, they jump on every occasion they think will give them the chance to prove their manhood. They suspend the suckling for a moment to run with the occasion, not realizing how stupid they look. Thus, while it is becoming increasingly clear that the Trayvon court case and its aftermath have been a story so toxic it could diminish even an already low valued Third World country, the American media – Left and Right, Conservative and Progressive – work together to fabricate stories about the Jewish killer having saved a family caught in a car accident.

Thus, instead of the editors saying to themselves: goddammit, this is a young man as American as any of us; goddammit this is a Jew who believes he belongs somewhere else; and goddammit we're going to find out what happened in the jury room that got the jurors of that case to come up with the verdict they did even though they had something else in mind. Instead of doing any of this, the editors of the Washington Post went searching overseas for a reason to tell their President not to keep his mouth shut this time, but to bark what they think will attest to their manhood – something that will make the world respect them again.

In the meantime, the fact that the jurors in the Trayvon Martin Case had something else in mind is amply evident by their behavior – all six of them having pronounced themselves after the fact. There was the one who is the wife of a lawyer (most likely Jewish) who went on television and praised the godly qualities of the Jewish killer. There were the four who quickly distanced themselves from her. And there was the sixth who publicly expressed her sorrow for consenting to a verdict she did not agree with originally.

It is obvious that this woman was pressured; even railroaded by the wife of the lawyer to go along with her, even forgo the explanation she sought from the judge as to the meaning of the law. And she got her to consent at a late hour on that fateful night absent the explanation that was preoccupying her. Thus, the hypothesis that must guide the American media at this time is the following: What did the lawyer's wife promise the reluctant woman? Was it a promise she reneged on? Was it an abrogation that seized the reluctant woman with a crisis of conscience as if she had betrayed Christ for a few silver pieces she did not receive after all?

This may well be a case of jury tampering from the inside, the type that only Jews who think they are above the law would engage in. These are people who believe they can do anything they want and get away with it simply because they always do what they want and get away with it in America. And yes, this is the America where editors such as those running the Washington post get down on their knees and blow job their Jewish masters to have a job and keep it.

What a miserable superpower, America has become!

End That Disgusting Spectacle Now

There was a time during the decade of the 1980s when the making of horror movies was popular in Hollywood. It was a disgusting trend; the most disgusting being the sight of bugs entering the human body through the nose or the ear to take over an individual and control him or her from the inside.

This image could well apply to the ongoing situation of the giant that is America ... already penetrated by bugs calling themselves leaders of the Jewish people. Well entrenched by now inside the American body, the bugs are degenerating it at a pace that is astonishing as much as it is frightening. Exuding a toxin that kills the ability of the brain to think in terms of ideas, and replacing that with a system that responds only to a single word, the bugs have managed to turn the giant into a brain-dead zombie which remains paralyzed at home, yet turns energetic when sent to do a chore abroad.

The situation has come down to the fact that when America is under the command of legislators representing the people of a supposedly sovereign country, the business of the nation gets gridlocked because no idea – however simple it may be – can be processed by a brain that remains as dead as a door nail. But that brain comes to life, even turns energetic when it goes under the command of the Jewish or Israeli lobbyists. Taking word orders from either of them, the giant prepares himself to kill and die so as to stroke the ego of a character like Netanyahu.

You can get an insight as to how this works when you read the opinion piece that was written by the editorial board of the New York Times, published on July 26, 2013 under the title: “Inching Forward in the Mideast.” It has to do with the American pretense of mediating the never-ending troubles in the Middle East. These troubles never end because America keeps nurturing them with financial, military, moral and diplomatic support. Thus, the mediation efforts are but a sham designed to extort concessions from the Palestinians and their Arab friends, yet give nothing in return despite the promises that America guaranties delivery of and never does.

And while the blame for the non-resolution of the troubles is always thrown at the Palestinians because Netanyahu and his running dogs complain they have no partner to speak with given that the Palestinians are “divided,” the dog runner comes up with what the editors of the Times characterize as: “Netanyahu would not even proceed with talks without approval from his divided cabinet.” What a disgusting spectacle!

The charade continues, America asks the Palestinians and the Arabs to make more concessions, and the Arab League responds by “modifying their 2002 Arab Peace Initiative so it is more in line with American and Israeli positions.” As well: “the Palestinians will not ask the United Nations to further upgrade their status while negotiations are under way.” And there is also this: “The European Union [has put] Hezbollah's military wing on the terror list” when the real terrorist in this sordid mess is Israel and her backers in America. Another disgusting spectacle playing itself out.

So then, what else do those characters do to maintain the status quo? They say that “Israelis need to know the new state will not threaten their security.” But how will this come about when the Israelis keep pumping into each other's head stories about a human race that cannot stand their antics? They do this instead of getting it through their heads they must change their ways to be more in line with the human race – and live happily thereafter.

Good points but no response except this: “The pessimists insist that this is not the time, and these are not the leaders, for a peace deal.” Thus, you can see these are “convenience” pessimists that always surface to tell you how the status quo can and must be maintained.

But to make it look like the cry is genuine, they do not suggest that the disgusting spectacle of giant America being piloted by a Jewish bug, must end here. On the contrary, they put the blame on the Palestinians by warning that “No good can come if Israel, with its growing Palestinian population, evolves from a Jewish state to an Arab majority state.”

This is a real threat for you, Israel. This is an argument for you, America. It is the argument that must be followed by cutting off all aid to Netanyahu and his clique till they end the occupation. And this is something that will happen in one week because that's how long Israel can survive without American aid.

The Failure to Cook-up a Faustian Plot

The cook of our story is Steven A. Cook who tried to cook-up a modern Egyptian plot modeled after an ancient German legend. The latter is a drama that was given a modern twist centuries later by Johann Goethe about a man who made a deal with the devil according to which he traded his soul in exchange for all the knowledge in the world, and all the pleasures of life. Steve Cook applied his talent writing an article in this vein under the title: “A Faustian Pact: Generals as Democrats” and had it published in the New York Times on July 26, 2013.

The trouble is that the Cook story did not go too well. It was meant to predict a bad ending for the rally that was called for on that day by the Egyptian military – here representing the character of Faust. The rally was to be staged throughout the country to denounce the acts of violence that were being committed by elements of society unhappy with the popular uprising that overthrew the old order. The rally did take place eventually, the people of Egypt seemed to have had a good time staging it, and nothing bad resulted because there was no soul to trade, and no devil with whom to trade.

So we ask: Where did Steven Cook go wrong in his understanding of the situation, and his predictions about it? I believe that his most fundamental misunderstanding of the Egyptian situation is encapsulated in the following paragraph: “millions of Egyptians welcomed the coup even as they claimed to want democracy, apparently [they] do not see the tension between these positions. Their faith in the military is misplaced, but it can be explained by six decades of hopes and disappointments.”

Cook then makes the classic (and I mean the absolutely, absolutely classical mistake) that no writer or talking head in America can avoid making. It is to contradict himself because he is conditioned under severe blackmail to never (and I mean never, never, never) say something good about Egypt without wrapping the saying inside a bad thing he must absolutely say about that country – unless he is prepared to lose his job. Thus, having spewed the words “misplaced” and “disappointments” to characterize six decades of relationship between the people of Egypt and their military, he can now say this: “Since 1952 [that's six decades ago], the armed forces have been Egypt's state builder, liberator and savior.”

He goes on to say: “That was true when its troops crossed the Suez Canal in 1973 in a war that ultimately ended with the Sinai returned from Israeli control. It was even more true in the years between 1956 and 1967, when Gamal Abdel Nasser and his fellow Free Officers nationalized the Suez Canal; stood firm in the face of a British, French and Israeli invasion; rejected the terms of Western financing of the Aswan High Dam; and created new economic and social opportunities for Egyptians.”

Steven Cook goes on to say: “The fact that the Free Officers delivered on promises of national power, social justice and economic opportunity provided Mr. Nasser and his comrades a reservoir of support … Mr. Nasser's heyday still represents, for many, the last time that Egypt felt united under leaders whose espoused principles met the needs of ordinary Egyptians … Even now, the elderly could tell me that Mr. Nasser and the army gave Egypt a gift. New generations share the impression.”

Well, Nasser is undoubtedly the national hero that the people of Egypt revere to this day. But they also see the heydays that he started continuing till at least 5 more years past the 1973 liberation of the Sinai. It happened under his successor and fellow Free Officer, Anwar Sadat. Thus, it was not until the end of the Seventies or early Eighties that the people of Egypt began to feel uneasy. This was a time when the Sadat administration had set aside the past, and put Egypt on the fast path to rapid industrialization.

This uneasiness is not peculiar to Egypt. It happens to all nations that transform from an agrarian society to an industrial one. How it expresses itself and develops depends on the peculiarities of each society; and the challenge would have been for scholars (perhaps Steven Cook among them) to find out what is purely Egyptian in the Egyptian transformation. To find out what is different about it from say, the Chinese, Indonesian, South Korean or Filipino experiences. Unfortunately, three decades of opportunities at studying Egypt in a scholarly fashion were wasted because the people who are paid to do this sort of work were forced to spew rubbish instead of producing scholarly work for the textbooks.

Having skipped the period from that time to the current situation, Steven Cook tries in his current article to explain what he sees happen now. But all he does is give an account of the histrionics from the fall of Mubarak to this day without the depth he could have expressed had he understood what motivates the people of Egypt. This is why he came to write something like this: “The ready acceptance of a coup in the name of democracy is understandable, but at best they are playing with fire.”

Citing a poll in which only 27 percent of the population expressed its view that a civilian control of the military was “very important,” he goes on to give his own view as to what would be important for Egypt. But he admits “Perhaps Egypt will be different.” Well, I can guaranty him that Egypt will be different in the same way that every experience is different from all the others.

Like says Desiderata, the universe is unfolding as it should despite the cooks who wish to cook-up the same meal for everyone.

Suspended Animation in the City of Dread

What happens when a demagogue who feeds on fear like a body snatcher feeds on the flesh of his catches, loses the means by which to strike fear in the hearts of potential victims? The answer is that he goes to the City of Dread and works to put the population under suspended animation to give himself the time to develop new means by which to strike fear in the hearts of potential victims so that he may gorge on them again.

This is what Reuel Marc Gerecht does with the article he published in the Wall Street Journal on July 25, 2013 under the title: “Egypt's Islamists Will Rise Again” and the subtitle: “The common view is that their 'moment' has passed. What if it's just getting started?” America and the “West” as he calls it are the grounds where the self-declared leaders of the Jews find bodies to snatch and devour after injecting fear into their hearts.

For these leaders to succeed, they must have something they can use as a weapon with which to strike fear in the hearts of potential victims. They had such weapons throughout history – from the Romans of Masada to the Christians of the Inquisition to the Aryans of Auschwitz to the White Supremacists of America to the Islamists of their imagination. When the latter turned out to be more pussycats than wild cats, Gerecht started to put in suspended animation, potential victims where he will keep them till he finds a way to make the Islamists look menacing again. And the article he published is the anesthetic by which he puts potential victims to sleep.

Look how he does that. He starts by telling the readers to forget what they saw unfold in the streets and squares of Egypt because what counts is that “The Westernization of the Egyptian poor has been in retreat for more than 40 years.” So you ask: What has that got to do with saving the world from the Islamists? And he responds: “The vast slums of Cairo – are hothouses for Islamism.” And you ask again: So what? And he responds: “This is not Facebook Cairo.” So? “So the slums [is where] imams and popular preachers are influential. The faith, fused to politics matters among the poor and the lower middle class.”

Still puzzled, you want to know what the imams can do with the poor and destitute of the Cairo slums that no one was able to do with the poor and destitute of the Mumbai slums, the Rio de Janeiro slums, the Soweto slums and what have you. Wow! What a good question! And he has a long answer for it: “In these precincts the army, security service and police are viewed with suspicion and hostility.” So what? “So the newfound love affair between the army and the secular liberals will not diminish the skepticism the devout have for army officers and their associates.”

But how will this make the poor and destitute of the Cairo slums menace the world? Wow! What a second good question! And he has a second long answer for it: “Mr. Morsi didn't handle his short term in office well … Many of his problems will now be confronted by the army-appointed government … An economic judgment day is coming and the secular crowd will [not] do any better than Morsi.”

But for the third time, how will this make the poor and destitute of the Cairo slums menace the world? Wow! What a good question! And he has a long answer for it: “Economic revitalization in Egypt won't happen unless the poor accept the pain that will come with shrinking the country's subsidies.” What does that mean? It means “Socialism has been a hard-to-kick drug for Egypt.” Is it European style Socialism; the sort that is creeping in America according to the Hard Right? “Oh no.” Why not? “Because Capitalism has probably got firmer roots among devout Muslims, where Islamic law teaches a certain respect for private property.”

I am now so confused, Reuel – or is it Marc? – that I must ask you this question: Are you trying to say that America must now adopt Sharia Law because Islamic law teaches respect for private property that the European (is that Western?) style Socialism is rejecting?

And that, my friend, is where the guy remains mum, which is the equivalent of saying “no comment,” which means he consents by his silence.

Did the man see some kind of light on his way to the City of Dread, decided to convert to another religion and go live in a slum among the poor? We may have a miracle on our hands.

Don't forget to write home when you get there, Gerecht. At least a postcard.

Old Habits Die Hard if They Die at All

There is the saying: “Old habits die hard,” but usually this means personal habits like having bad table manners or driving fast in a school zone. What the saying does not mean to convey is latching on to old conclusions when the original premise that led to them turns out to be false. And yet, this is what you see these days from people who should know better but are so motivated by political considerations, they ditch everything they were taught about intellectual integrity – if indeed, they were taught anything at all in this field.

A case in point is the latest work by Dalibor Rohac who is a policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity at the Cato Institute; supposedly a prestigious think tank. Rohac wrote: “The Arab Spring Needs Economic Freedom,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “The Middle East won't have democracy soon, but economic liberalization can help.” It was published on July 24, 2013 in National Review Online.

As you read the article you get the feeling that the author is operating with two minds. You detect a mind that wants to be honest in describing the situation as it sees it in the Arab world. And you detect a mind that struggles to hang on to current habits and obsolete ideas. The latter has the habit of attributing to all the Arabs every deficiency it encounters in each country. It will also argue that things are bad in the Arab World at this time by asserting that they were better in the past. It will then contradict the assertion by suggesting that the Arabs have, in any case, been a hopeless lot all along.

The title and subtitle of the article being about the need to have economic reform and liberalization in the Arab world, you look closely to see how the author views the current situation, what he says needs to change, and what the situation should look like after the change. Thus, you see him start like this: “the revolution that overthrew Mubarak was driven by lack of economic opportunity.” This says flat out that the situation was bad since the beginning of the Mubarak era if not before it.

So now you want to know what happened after that. And the author says: “Unfortunately, the country's newly elected government under Morsi failed.” It means the situation remained bad even after Mubarak was gone. What then? you want to know. Even in the months leading up to the recent military coup, the situation remained as bad as ever, says he. The conclusion you must draw is that: It was bad all along – from A to Z.

That situation seems a little strange to you, and the author surprises you by calling it strange as well. But he says so for a reason that is different from yours: “Strangely enough, among politicians and Middle East experts, economic issues seem to be on the back burner.” He goes on to tell what is needed to fix things: “radical economic reforms could go a long way in improving the lives of ordinary Arabs.” Oh, look at that. It's not only the Egyptians he is talking about; it's all the Arabs now. Thus, from the strange situation that nothing was done correctly in Egypt since before the Mubarak era, he now associates the bad scene with all the Arabs in their 22 countries.

Maybe that was just a slip of the tongue. Was it not? Oh no. In fact, now that the author has started riding the idea of lumping the Arabs together, he stays with the theme: “After Africa, the Middle East is the most rapidly growing region.” He goes further than that by attributing to the Arab World what he says is wrong with each country: “In Morocco, those with the highest level of educational achievement face unemployment rate of 19.4 percent ... To register a claim on a piece of real estate in Algeria it takes ten procedures ... In Egypt, entrepreneurs pay 42.6 percent of their profit to the government.” And so on.

Is there an end to this collective incompetence of the Arabs? Apparently not: “In the past two years, Arab governments have done little to liberate their citizens economically. If anything, the situation has been made worse in some places.” So then, what's the answer? The author responds: “The Middle East is reaching a point at which reforms are becoming unavoidable … the governments need bold reformers...” And so you innocently ask the question: How do you do that?

Unfortunately, you find out the hard way that you should not have asked this question. You know why? Because, to answer it, the author uses full force to clobber you over the head not with a baseball bat but a steel bar. Here is the guy that has been saying how bad things were since before Mubarak – and have remained bad throughout the decades – now advising that to solve the region's economic problems: “In some cases, such as Egypt's, this means a simple return to the economic liberalization and privatization that had been gradually occurring in the years before the Arab Spring.” Pow! How much more can my head take?

And how is the bump on your head, my friend? Yes, these characters of the think tanks are paid good money to come up with articles such as these. Worse, they find politicians who will listen to them and formulate policies based on the rubbish they spew. What a shame!

The Commissioner Who Talks Like a Cop

Judging by the article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal, it is obvious that New York police commissioner, Ray Kelly does not have a PhD in philosophy or in writing articles that sound coherent. He certainly talks like a cop, and he may be a good one – something I am not equipped to assess. And so, while I am happy to let others judge him as to his competence with regard to the position he holds, there are a few things I wish to contribute to the debate he just launched.

The article he wrote was published on July 23, 2013 under the title: “The NYPD: Guilty of Saving 7,383 Lives” and the subtitle: “Accusations of racial profiling ignore the fact that violent crime overwhelmingly occurs in minority neighborhoods.” What is jarring about the subtitle is that the author complains about “accusations” being leveled with regard to acts of racial profiling he admits the NYPD committed for the good reason that violent crime occurs in “minority neighborhoods.” Hey, Mr. Kelly, if someone points out that you're doing something you say is a good thing, this is not an accusation. It is the truth, and you are defending it, which you have every right to do. What you cannot do, however, is call an accusation what you admit is true. The rule of thumb is that if it is true, it cannot be an accusation; it is a statement of the truth.

Speaking mainly about “young men of color,” the commissioner says that his department has engaged in “proactive” policing strategies without telling what exactly proactive means to a cop. He then complains about the critics who “allege that massive numbers of minorities are stopped and questioned by police.” To make his point, he quotes numbers that, in reality, tell a disconcerting story. He says that in a city of 8.5 million people, each of his 19,600 officers stops about 50 persons a year. That's a total of 980,000 stops each and every year. So I ask how many young men of color live in a city of that size. I estimate no more than two million. Doing the math, this says that one in two are stopped and questioned every year. It also means that virtually all of these young men are stopped once every two years. That would be massive alright.

Once again, the author makes an error of logic comparable to the one he made in the subtitle. Here it is: “Racial profiling is a disingenuous charge at best and an incendiary one at worst.” But is he going to deny it? No. On the contrary, he defends it on the grounds that it has “rock-solid legal and constitutional foundation underpinning [it].” He also expresses understanding towards the people who did nothing wrong being upset when they are stopped and searched.

What Ray Kelly says after that is what comes close to home. Here is how he starts that part of the presentation: “In a similar vein, our detractors contend that the NYPD engages in widespread, unwarranted spying on Muslim New Yorkers. Again, this is a sensational charge belied by the facts.” Well, I am not a Muslim anymore than I am a New Yorker or a Black or a Hispanic. I am a typical male of Egyptian origin who happens to be “twice” a Christian, having been baptized as a Copt and a Catholic. I have a story to tell; a horror story that lasted 45 years. I get so upset the moment that I start telling it, I am forced to drop it quickly and move on to something else. Bits and pieces of it are told in a few places throughout this website, and I do not wish to add anymore to that except what is absolutely necessary to make the point I set out to contribute to this debate.

To make that point as succinctly as I can, I must now reveal something I did not know before launching this website. Up to now I had only known about the people I met, and the events I witnessed since the day in 1968 when the Toronto Star published my letter to the editor under the title “Don't listen to propaganda, Egypt is a civilized country” after which the Canadian Jewish Congress sent someone to warn me that I should never again contact the media, or else.”

I did not heed that warning but went on doing what I wanted to do. In the process, I mingled with Jews, became friends with some and did antagonize a few others. I was also approached by Jewish organizations, some of which coaxed me to do one thing or another, promised me this or that, enticed me with this offer or that one, warned me of this consequence or that outcome – but nothing that I could not shrug off and forget about.

And then after the launch of the website, I began to receive information as to what was being done behind my back relentlessly and throughout the decades to “get rid of me” or at least maintain me on the blacklist. The most horrifying story to chill the spine was that of the Jews who came this close to convincing a provincial Minister to have me arrested and thrown in jail. The reason why it did not happen is that they could not think of an entrapment scheme I would bite into or a legal excuse they could use to harm me.

I am certain that the same sort of thing must be happening in America today, and there must be many people of Arab descent that the Jewish organizations are working hard to destroy simply because the Arabs are telling the public: Don't listen to propaganda; the Jewish organizations are Hell itself operating here on Earth.

Sissies and Eunuchs Indulging Themselves

The Weekly Standard is the magazine where the American sissies who stray to the far Right of the political spectrum congregate and discuss ways by which to stroke the ego of the Israeli eunuchs whose natural places are both the extreme Left and the extreme Right of the spectrum – but never the middle of it.

You get to see a snapshot of the way that these people live their intellectual lives when you look at two articles that were published in the infamous magazine on July 19 and July 20 respectively of the year 2013. The first article was written by Michael Warren under the title: “131 House Members sign Dovish Letter on Iran” with a subtitle that says: “Including 18 Republicans.” The second article was written by Tom Gross under the title: “Was Israel's Latest 'Air' Attack on Syria from a Submarine?”

You don't have to be a genius to detect the relationship that exists between those two articles. It is that the sorority of American sissies and Israeli eunuchs was disappointed by the fact that a number of House Republicans joined the Democrats in taking a dovish attitude toward someone in the world – this time Iran. And so the members of the sorority decided the next day to ask the question they thought will make the Iranian leaders tremble. And you deduce that the relationship between the two events is that of a cause and its effect.

Speaking on behalf of the sorority, Michael Warren begins his article by reproducing in full the bipartisan letter that the House legislators sent to President Barack Obama. As you read it, you realize it is a perfectly normal letter, and you conclude it is one that was written by intelligent and responsible people expressing concern and appealing to an intelligent and responsible man.

But to badmouth this Congressional initiative – as rare as it is – Michael Warren does what the members of the sorority usually do in such cases. He sets in motion the incestuous relationship they have cultivated among themselves; that of quoting each other. Thus, he quotes John Bolton who said that the letter will allow the Tehran regime to buy time and “make progress on its nuclear weapons program.” He also quotes Sohrab Ahmari who wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the newly elected President of Iran, Mr. Hassan Rouhani “helped the regime evade Western scrutiny of its nuclear-weapons program.” And he quotes Reuel Marc Gerecht who wrote that “Rouhani has confessed that negotiations were designed to advance the nuclear program.”

And this is when you hear the bells ring because this is where you get hit with two important happenings. First, you notice that the two members of the sorority, Bolton and Ahmari make reference to the Iranian nuclear “weapons” program without saying from where they got this information. But when the third member, Gerecht addresses the same subject, he quotes Mr. Rouhani verbatim and speaks only of a nuclear program – not a nuclear weapons program. Conscious of the significance that exists in the distinction between these two sayings, Gerecht tries to take the edge out of it by characterizing the Rouhani saying as a “confession.” With this, he hopes that the readers will come to believe Rouhani had a guilty conscience.

And because there is a difference between having a civilian nuclear program and a military one, the sissies of the Weekly Standard ended the article in a manner that suggests the Iranians as a nation are guilty of something. They formulated their demagogic verbiage like this: “it will be interesting to see if the Obama policy moves along the lines of this letter or [will] increase the pressure on the regime to its nuclear weapons program.” This would be the “weapons” of their imagination – their very sick imagination.

And you can see how sickly these sissies are when you look at the article they wrote the next day. Suspecting that the American President will not fall in the trap they set for him, they now seek to convince the world that Israel can be worse than Iran (which is a good thing in their eyes) because they believe the Jews have the right to do what they say the Iranians aspire to do. In fact, they want the world and Iran to know that Israel has had a nuclear weapons program for 50 years. Furthermore, they go on to say that Israel can deliver those weapons to the Iranian homeland and destroy its nuclear program before the thing gets started. And this, my friend, is how the American sissies stroke the Israeli eunuch to make him feel like the big and stiff member of the Erectoid species he never was and can never be.

So then, we ask: How is it that Tom Gross achieves all that? And we see that he starts by setting up a typical Judeo-Israeli situation of ambiguous moral clarity. He writes: “it seems that the July 5 attack on a depot near Latakia, which has been attributed to Israel, came not from the air but from under the water.” He goes on to say: “[an] intriguing scenario was raised when the London Times reported that the attack was carried by missiles fired from submarines.” To add more ambiguity to the Judeo-Israeli sense of moral clarity, Gross quotes none other than Netanyahu who spoke “in line with Israel's policy of neither confirming nor denying such actions.”

Having thus established the ambiguously clear sense that Israel may or may not be a giant member of the supremely moral species of Erectoids, Tom Gross unleashes a verbal attack on Iran: “more alarming for Israel is that Iran is only weeks away from crossing the 'red line.'” Quoting Netanyahu, he asserts that “Iran is now 60 kilograms short of crossing this line,” and that Rouhani is “a wolf in sheep's clothing.” For which “In Israel, Rouhani is viewed as far more dangerous than Ahmadinejad ever was.”

This being the case, and given that “diplomats have concluded America is unwilling to stop Iran from going nuclear,” the giant Erectoid from the kingdom of Eunuchs must now unveil his secret weapons. For one thing, he has submarines armed with nuclear weapons patrolling the planet's oceans; he also has electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons, malicious computer codes he can introduce into critical infrastructure, and possibly has special forces he can launch remotely.

Now that the world can see how far the eunuch's erection can reach and how stiffly it can do so, Tom Gross warns: “It is still not too late for the Iranian regime to stand down or for the West to ratchet up sanctions to make them do so.” By this, he means to advise the Iranians to stop taking Viagra while advising all Westerners to double the doses they have been taking.

Certain that this is not going to happen, but still hungry to give Israel credit for it, he goes on to say: “If Iran does back down it may be the result of a realization that Israeli capacity to attack and stop them is far greater than might at first be apparent.”

No, it is no more apparent than the joke they used to tell in the old days about the newlywed who pulled the pants off the groom only to see a sign that says: “This is where it is supposed to be.”

Detroit Goes Down, Egypt Stays Up. Why?

Why is it that a municipality like the City of Detroit went bankrupt? And why is it that a country like Egypt, hit with a torrent of calamities from all sides, weathered the storm and remained on its feet without flinching? To answer these questions, we first need to understand a few concepts in two areas of the economy: wealth creation and financing.

Let's begin the discussion with an illustration. You just graduated from college with a degree in geology. You are young and have nothing to your name except a small amount of money that will keep you going for a few months. But instead of seeking a job with an established company, you choose to become an independent prospector, and go look for an opportunity out there in the wilderness. You get lucky and discover a multi-metal deposit that can be mined commercially. This is wealth because where there was nothing there is now something. But it is wealth that is not yet useful because it has not gone through the many steps that will be necessary to transform it into consumer items called end products.

The first step that needs to be done to get there is mine the metals, which means extract them from the ground. To this end, you can sell the discovery to an existing mining company that will do the work. It will pay you an amount of money that may be large enough to let you retire and live the good life without ever having to work again. On the other hand, being young and ambitious, you may decide to live out your dream and practice your passion to the fullest. To this end, you will need to establish a mining company of your own, become its chief executive officer and run its day to day operations.

The catch is that to do all that, you will need financing at the outset. This will be money you will use to establish the company, erect the buildings and related installations, buy the equipment and hire workers. From where to get that money? Well, there are two principal methods by which to obtain financing: one method is to borrow money from the bank or a similar institution; the other method is to sell shares in the company you propose to establish. This means you will take as partners, people who will own a portion of the company in exchange for money they will pay to its treasury – thus allow you to launch the project and get it going.

You decide to do both; borrow some money and sell a number of shares. With cash flowing into the company's account, you start to work on the infrastructure that will bring the mine to life. Almost instantly, other prospectors and existing companies descend on the area, giving it the look of a mining camp. The participants stake their claims; they prospect for deposits, bring all sorts of equipment, drill holes and move the earth. With each discovery, new people are brought to the camp, and they necessitate the construction of new housing, new accommodations and all sorts of amenities that go into a human settlement.

You now have what looks like a town that cries out to be incorporated into a legal municipality. This prompts the people of the area to get together and agree on a constitution, as well as elect the members who will serve on its governing body. This done, you have a town that needs services ranging from the collection of garbage to providing the citizens with protection from the elements when feasible, and providing it with police work when necessary. For these reasons, the municipality is given the right to plan its own growth, enact its bylaws, levy taxes on businesses and levy rates on home owners. It is expected to spend that money in a manner that best serves the interests of its taxpayers and ratepayers.

Depending on several factors, the municipality will remain a mining town till the ore reserves are depleted – perhaps in two or three centuries – after which it will become a ghost town. Alternatively, it may attract industrialists and other entrepreneurs who will set up manufacturing plants and service industries that will add value to the ore and transform it into semi-finished products that other industries will use. As well, there will be enterprises producing finished goods ready for the consumers to pick up and pay for.

If this happens before the ore reserves are depleted, the town could grow to become a large metropolis, attracting all sorts of industries, research centers, universities and other institutions that will come and establish themselves inside the city limits, run profitable operations and pay taxes. And the city will have a bureaucracy of civil servants that will keep growing with it so as to handle its growing business and growing needs.

This is what Detroit looked like before it began to decline and ultimately go bankrupt. It may not have followed a scenario exactly similar to the one described above while growing into a city of more than two million people, but this would have little to do with the reason why it went bankrupt. Detroit started to decline because it remained essentially a one-industry town – an auto industry that was hit hard by foreign competition using cheap labor. Still, the city could have survived this ordeal and could have gone on to thrive again by diversifying its industrial base, thus avoid bankruptcy. It could have done this well were it not for the fact that throughout the decades, it also loaded itself with something called unfunded liabilities.

What's that? That can be one of several things. The most important being that insurance premiums are deducted from earners and given to a government at some level – from the municipal to the federal – in exchange for a legally binding promise that the earners will be entitled to receive regular payments upon retirement; or receive payments before that time should the payer become disabled or temporarily unemployed. The trouble is that it can sometimes happen that the money collected by the government is wasted by mismanagement, bad luck or what have you. And so, unable to fulfill its obligations, the government will have no alternative but to declare bankruptcy, which means ask the courts to relieve it of obligations it can no longer fulfill. This is what happened to Detroit whose retired civil servants grew in numbers at a time when people and businesses were leaving town.

Another way for a government to accumulate unfunded liabilities is to guaranty loans taken by someone else, a habit for which the federal government of America is notorious. This can range from loans taken by students which is a laudable thing to do. But it can also be loans taken by a parasitic entity such as Israel; a horrific thing to have done and to maintain to this day. Students are the future of the country, when they do well; the country does well and will be able to fulfill its obligations. But in the case of Israel, this is a hell hole that has no economy to speak of. It is a little bit like the Cayman Islands where tax cheaters hide their money. A little bit like Cyprus where shady moguls park their money. And a little bit like a front enterprise; a hollow shell through which mafia bosses launder their money and political bosses get funded under the table to then peddle influences in the service of their mafia bank-rollers.

America could soon be in the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars when everyone – most of them Jewish moguls – will pull the rug from under that miserable thing they call Israel. These moguls have a dual citizenship that allows them to receive American loan guaranties as Israeli citizens, yet run away and call themselves citizens of another jurisdiction when the time comes to pay back what they took out. This is how Israel's debt keeps accumulating and how America, the guarantor of that debt, will get shafted when Israel will be forced to throw the towel.

The day of reckoning is approaching because those moguls are realizing that their project has lost its viability. They tried to create a base out of which to takeover the world by funding violent Israeli activities aimed at stealing land and water from the immediate neighbors, and by provoking other people beyond them. The moguls also trained American politicians, especially those in the Congress, to erupt in joy every time that Israel spills blood in the Middle East. When this happens, diplomatic support is extended to Israel as if to congratulate that thing for a job well done. Also, more money and more weapons are transferred from America to Israel.

But then America started to approach a critical point in its own finances. Fearing that the country has been exhausted partly because of their own actions, the Jewish moguls started to look toward China and Russia to see if they can duplicate their American adventure somewhere else. The essence of Israel's relationship with America being that America remained mum or erupted in joy when Israel spilled blood in the Middle East every time that Netanyhu boarded a plane to go to Washington, the moguls wanted to test the reaction of the Chinese and the Russians in this regard.

To this end, they sent Netanyahu to China right after committing the criminal act of bombing someone – this time Syria. The response has been that upon Netanyahu's arrival, the Chinese told him to turn around and get out of there before they charge him with crimes against humanity and sentence him to life digging coal in a Chinese coal mine – not exactly these words but something to that effect. And so, the moguls sent Netanyahu to Russia right after committing a similar bombing act. And the Russian response was to tell the ugly duckling from Israel that if he did not get out of there fast, he will spend the rest of his years in a Siberian gulag – not exactly these words but something to that effect. And this was the moment when the Jewish moguls became convinced that Israel had become a lost cause from which they must cut and run. And they are doing just that at this time.

America will survive eventually as did Egypt. But why did Egypt survive and not Detroit, a once thriving metropolis inside America? Well, we saw why Detroit went down. And the way to avoid a similar fate is for the other municipalities to create a heritage fund in which the collected premiums will go, and from which payments to retirees, the disabled and the unemployed will come out. Such payments must never have an absolute value; but should increase or decrease depending on how much is left in the fund year after year.

As to why Egypt has survived and why America will survive; it is because they each have a diversified economy. There may be a Detroit or two in each of them, but other thriving municipalities exist as well that contribute to the wealth of the nation. Unlike Israel and Cyprus that serve as transit points where money is parked, going from one jurisdiction to another, Egypt and America create real wealth in terms of agriculture, mining, quarrying, manufacturing, construction and all the services that are required to make those operations possible, and make them run smoothly.

The creation of wealth is what makes an economy, not the handling of wealth crated by someone else. When you create wealth, you may experience a financial bottleneck once in a while, but you will outgrow it to thrive again. But if you only handle the wealth that someone else creates, the first serious bottleneck you experience will be the one that will break your neck and put you out for good.

A Civilized Lesson from Europe to America

It is clear now that the long term strategy of the Jewish lobby in America has been to infiltrate the legislative branches of government, especially the federal one, and have them pass laws that benefit Israel and the other Jewish causes at the expense of the American people, and everyone else for that matter.

To do that, the Jewish infiltrators employed a devilish approach: While allowing every law to be made reviewable, amendable and reversible – which is the democratic and civilized way of doing things – they fashioned the laws that benefit Israel and the Jews in such a way as to be ironclad, absolute, irreversible and never subject to be reviewed – which is the autocratic, savage and very Jewish way of doing things.

The lobby was able to achieve all that by turning the American legislators into trainable puppies, and conditioning them to obey their master's voice. And that voice came in the form of simple commands, not in the form of explanations that may require the engagement of human intelligence. Just as you train a puppy to respond in a specified manner when hearing terms like “go fetch,” “catch this” and “sit here,” the Jewish lobbyists and infiltrators trained the American legislators to respond in a specified manner to terms like “extremist Palestinians,” “groups of thugs” and “delegitimizing the Jewish state.”

So now that the European Union (EU) has taken another step on the road to reduce the effect of the Jewish moral syphilis that has been ravaging the Planet, the lobby in America called on an Israeli cabinet minister to write something that will reduce the impact of the European decision on the psyche of the American legislators who may see the light, thus experience the canine version of a Spartacus rising among them, and work to free them from the yoke of Jewish moral enslavement.

That minister is Yair Lapid who is in charge of finance. He wrote his article under the title: “Europe's Stance on Settlements Is a Blunder” and sent it to the New York Times that published it on July 20, 2013. Lapid begins by telling the American readers that the Europeans may be well intentioned but the people they are trying to help are evil, therefore the European decision – being a misguided mistake – will cause more calamities than the evil ones can cause all by themselves.

Using little veiled subtleties to call the Palestinian opponent “evil,” automatically makes the Israeli-Jewish side the good side – the one that is saintly and beyond reproach. Okay. Now that we know who the characters are, we need to know what the plot is. So then tell us, Mr. Minister, what the plot is about. Here it is: “as a minister and chairman of the party that is committed to peace, I wish to note one problem with the new EU directives: They will encourage delay in the resumption of peace negotiations.”

How is that? You want to know how that is? the minister asks. I'll tell you how that is. Hear me loudly and clearly, ye American legislators who may be inclined to emulate the Europeans. What we have here are “extremist Palestinians” and “groups of thugs” who wish to “delegitimize the Jewish state.” He goes on to explain: They demand that the president of Palestine stall the negotiations because, as long as the Palestinians steer clear of the negotiating table, their situation will improve.”

And this is where you scream: What? Are you saying these people love the occupation or something? No, no, they don't like the occupation, and neither does the rest of the world. But as long as the occupation continues, Israel delegitimizes itself in the eyes of the world, you see. So then why don't you just get the hell out of Palestine, thus end the delegitimization of the miserable thing you call Israel?

What was that again? A question? Oh, you did ask me a question. You want to know why we don't just get out of Palestine and be legit like every civilized being on the planet? Good question, and I am sure I must have an answer for it. Well, let me think. Oh yes, here is the answer: “These enemies are powerful, but their argument has recently weakened.” Oh good. But do you think your argument has strengthened, Minister? Of course, of course it did get stronger, and I'll tell you why. Remember the taxes we used to collect from the Palestinians on behalf of Palestinians but stole the money and kept it for ourselves? Well, we decided to “unsteal” that money, and give it to its rightful owners. See how good, saintly and beyond reproach we are? Hey, congratulate me, I'm legitimate; as legitimate as you.

If that is the case, where do we go from here Mr. Minister? A question? Yes, that too is a question. Let me think now. Oh yes, I have an answer for that. In fact, it is a two-part answer. There is a part for the world and a part that is tailor made for the American suckers in the Congress. The part for the world is this: “It's challenging enough to remain sane.” As to the part that is tailor-made for the Americans, they must never forget that the laws for the Jews were fashioned in such a way as to be ironclad, absolute, irreversible and never subject to be reviewed. Thus, the lesson to be learned here is that: “The EU would do well to revoke its decision” but if it does not, don't you Americans emulate it.

If you are puzzled as to what the minister was referring to when he said he may be insane, you'll find the answer in another article that was published on the same day, on the same page of the New York Times. It has the title “The E.U.'s New Guidelines on Israel Are Not a boycott,” and was written by Daniel Levy. He says this: “Europe has always considered the settlements to be illegal, and existing E.U. Agreements with Israel already contain stipulations barring benefits to settlements … Nevertheless, the reaction in Israel has bordered on hysteria.” He must have meant insane hysteria.

Does that mean Levy sees the plot line of the ongoing drama differently from Yair Lapid, the Israeli minister? Yes he does. This is how Levy sees the plot: “the lack of consequences for Israel has been a key enabler of the ongoing occupation and denial of Palestinian rights.” But why can't the Americans see things the way that the Europeans do? Daniel levy responds: “While Washington has similar stipulations regarding settlements in its loan guarantees to Israel, domestic US politics (that damned Congress of ill-repute again) restrict the consequences it can impose on Israel.

And to respond directly to the minister's contentions, Levy writes: “[This] brings us to the most disingenuous and misleading claim of the Israeli leadership in opposing Europe's move – that it harms efforts to achieve peace by empowering Palestinian maximalism.” He elaborates: “Reverse the claim, and it does ring true: Europe's move helps peace by challenging Israel's impunity, thus undercutting Israeli maximalists.” And he ends like this: “Europe's move might be remembered for resuscitating the two-state project.”

What must be resuscitated now are the dead brains of the primitive puppies in the dog pound that is owned and operated by the American Jewish lobby.

Strong Hints at Jury Tampering in Florida

The first thing that comes to mind when you look at the post-verdict performance of the jurors in the  Martin/Zimmerman case is the question: Could it be that jury tampering happened in this case? Could it be that the juror who went on television and spoke of Zimmerman in such glowing terms was a plant that tampered with the jury from the inside rather than the usual way by which juries are tampered with? Could it be that the child Trayvon Martin was murdered not only because he was Black but also because George Zimmerman is a Jew? Indeed, could it be that Zimmerman got away with murder because he is a Jew?

These would be the questions that someone endowed with natural curiosity would ask, having casually followed the post verdict events. It may well be that the four jurors who distanced themselves from the one that spoke lovingly of Zimmerman, have stories of their own to tell as to how that one juror came prepared with tricks and hocus pocus arguments she employed to put the other jurors at ease as to the simplicity of the case, and while so anesthetized railroaded them into reaching the not guilty verdict.

But you would have to reject this theory because to pull a feat of this magnitude, you would need the collaboration of a number of powerful people who do not believe in equal justice for all yet have deep roots and powerful influences inside the system of justice itself. Come to think of it, there is one man that fits this bill; the notorious Alan Dershowitz. But this guy operates out of New York while the case was unfolding in Florida, a different jurisdiction. This ends the speculation, and ends the story.

But then comes a hurricane that wakes you up and brings to your attention the reality that you missed out on something huge – something very huge. It is that Alan Dershowitz was into this thing to his eyeballs from the beginning; even from before the beginning of this case. His story is told in National Review Online, written by Ian Tuttle on July 17, 2013 under the title “Angela Corey's Checkered Past” and the subtitle: “Her Peers describe an M.O. of retaliation and overcharging.”

Alan Dershowitz made it his lifelong project to convince the world that Jews as well as Israel (which is full of Jews) are above the law. He has worked tirelessly to make sure that the Jews can go about doing what they want in the world, and never be prosecuted. But if for some weird reason, someone manages to prosecute a Jew, and he is found guilty of something, the verdict must be reversed no matter how mild it came down. Not only that but Dershowitz also wants the prosecuting side to publicly show remorse, and beg forgiveness for thinking that a Jew can be guilty of something.

Reading the Tuttle article, you realize that long before the case started, Dershowitz had it in for Angela Corey who ended up prosecuting it. Thus, beside a lifelong dedication to protect Jews from prosecution, Dershowitz had a personal reason to get involved in this case, and had the time to organize the things that needed to be done. He must have worked like the dickens to plant the bogus juror inside that jury, and he must have given her full instructions directly or indirectly as to what she must do legally and psychologically to pressure the other jurors to reach the fake verdict they did.

An America whose culture, media, legislatures and executive branches have been infested with moral syphilis, cannot now let its jury system be infested with that disease as well. I saw the fear in the eyes of prominent Jewish lawyers in Quebec when the Canadian Jewish Congress tried at one time to pressure the then Minister of Justice to tamper with the judicial system by doing things that would have stroked the ego of a handful of sick men at the helm of that joint.

Those prominent lawyers had lived in Europe at the time of the Holocaust, and they attributed the tragedy to the “criminal Jews” who tried to tamper with the system of Justice over there. They brought horror to all Jews at the time, and they should not be allowed to repeat the performance in Canada, said the concerned Jewish lawyers.

Apparently, Alan Dershowitz did not get that memo.

Bore Me Not but Let Me Bore Thee

July 16 should probably be called boredom day and made a holiday whereupon people will stay home and just be bored. So now you want to know why I am making this suggestion. Okay, I'll tell you why, but you'll have to do some work on your own which, I promise, will entertain you enormously or perhaps bore you to death. In any case, the outcome will depend entirely on your temperament.

The work you will have to do is to read three articles that were published on that day. Two articles came in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), one being: “Israel Has Launched Long-Shot Attacks Before” and having the subtitle: “Iran should take heed: In 1967, a pre-emptive strike on Egypt seemed impossible too.” It was written by Daniel Nisman. The other WSJ article came under the title: “The Boring Palestinians” and the subtitle: “If this were a TV drama, it would be 'The X-Files' in its 46th season.” It was written by Bret Stephens. As to the third article, it came in National Review Online under the title: “Obama's Authoritarians” and the subtitle: “Mouthing Sixties-style anti-Western slogans is the way to win the president's heart.” It was written by Victor Davis Hanson.

The Stephens article will tell you about the “Boring” Palestinians while the Hanson article will tell you about “the free expression that Palestinians are denied … so taken for granted as to be boring.” As you can see, these two gentlemen may be bored by themselves, having to exchange notes all the time, and hearing each other badmouth the Palestinians nonstop. They will most certainly bore you as well, but only a little because they manage to turn up a comical trick once in a while. But the article that will really bore you is the one written by Daniel Nisman because, like a perpetual motion machine that mimics a frustrated eunuch forever massaging his phantom erection, he will cause your tears of boredom to flow like a river.

So let's begin with this guy Nisman whose task this time is to bore the world yet again with the fictitious notion that Israel is facing an existential threat from Iran, and the equally fictitious threat that Israel is going to bomb Iran to remove the Iranian threat. It is like the nth rerun of an old movie where the characters are the same: “Benjamin Netanyahu's willingness to use military force” because there was before him Levi Eshkol who faced a similar question in May of 1967 and used military force.

The author admits it was a “surprise attack” in which “Eshkol sent most of Israel's air force into Egypt” presumably to ascertain that Netanyahu will do the same thing with Iran. He will do so – if he will do it at all – except for one thing: where will the surprise come from when the eunuch has been massaging his fictitious manhood openly in full view of the world?

The author of the boring article does not answer the question but goes on to display Israel's bravado by reminding the reader of the fact that “successive Israeli leaders have signed off on daring operations” because they all had a “do-or-die, all-or-nothing mindset.” And he promises that Israel will do it again, this time without an element of surprise protecting it because “Iran's nuclear program is racing forward like an express train.”

And the man ends the article this way: “the Obama administration should heed this history.” Yes indeed, Mr. Obama you should heed this history. If they want to do it, let them do it alone. If they are going to die, it will be their wish. Don't send American boys and girls to die rescuing them if and when it comes to that. If you do it, you will have the blood of your people on your hand for history to curse you till the end of time.

And while Nisman is discussing an Iranian threat out of his imagination, Bret Stephens is discussing a real situation in which Israeli troops are occupying the Palestinian homeland, and have for several generations. But he advises that people should pretend the occupation is not real, and think of it as a TV drama that is unfolding; something like the 'X-Files' where the truth is out there but nobody can locate it.

To make his point, he does something that shows the world and shows you the readers how you can stare at the truth and pretend not to see it. To wit, anyone familiar with the way that Israeli politics is conducted at times, knows that these people will go as far as call each other Nazi-like Jew, and children of Nazi collaborators. But that's fine, says Stephens and others like him, because it proves that Israel is a vibrant democracy. Okay, said the world, if that's how you define democracy, so be it.

But now, that same Bret Stephens and others like him are telling us otherwise. In fact, he tells of a situation that is somewhat similar; it is one that prompted him to write the current article. He tells the story of a Palestinian named Sufian Abu Zaida who is an unhappy camper because he finds that Palestinian President Mahnoud Abbas has too much authority. He did not call him a Nazi or anything like that, he only expressed on a website the though that “the President today is the President of everything that has to do with the Palestinian people and cause.”

But why does Stephens not see this as proof of Palestinian democracy – vibrant or not – and wish the Palestinian people well? Why not, you ask? I'll tell you why not. Because he is spinning this incident not to say something good about the Palestinians; it is to say something bad about them. Not only them Palestinians but also them Americans who are giving them Palestinians too much attention instead of diverting their attention to them Iranians who pose a fictitious threat to Israel. And this is how he put it: “What else is new? It isn't going to keep John Kerry – a fool on a fool's errand – from making his sixth visit to try to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.” Peace? Who wants peace? Peace is for sissies. Eunuchs display their phantom manhood and that's why they are he-men.

Stephens goes on a tangent for a few more paragraphs to end the article like this: “If Palestinians want to be interesting again, and worth of decent respect, they could start by not playing to tin-pot type.”

And this is when your braincells light up like a Christmas tree. It hits you that Victor Hanson – the guy that Stephens must have communicated with before the two sat down to write articles on boredom – has opposite ideas on the subject of tin-pot dictators. In fact, the Hanson article sings the praises of “strongmen like Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, and Anastasio Somoza.” But he also denigrates other strongmen like “the Castro brothers, Che Guevera, the Eastern European puppet regimes, an array of monsters in Africa, the Ortega bunch and Hugo Chavez.” So you ask: What's going on?

What's going on is that a tin-pot dictator must be a pro-American tin-pot who will also tolerate, or at least pretend to tolerate Israel, to be considered a good tin-pot; otherwise he will be viewed as a bad tin-pot. Hanson goes on to say that because the kids of long ago failed to see things in this light, they were dishonest with themselves and: “that dishonesty remained with us as the children of the 1960s aged and assumed the reins of American power.” Which is why, in his view “Barack Obama – who came of age on the fumes of the 1960s – react[s]” to events the way that he does, says Hanson.

But if Hanson communicated with Stephens before the two sat down to write their respective articles, where is the Hanson fiction, you ask? Here it is: “Obama's 2009 Cairo speech was pure mytho-history, inventing out of thin air all sorts of Lala Land Islamic achievements.” Not only that, but you have fools and toadyism in both articles. Stephens saw John Kerry as a fool, and detected “pervasive toadyism among Palestinians. Hanson, on the other hand, has called James Clapper a “toadyish fool.” See how the echo chamber echoes the call to the gas chamber?

When this day will come again, it will not have been brought by the tin-pot dictators that Stephens and Hanson hate; it will have been brought by the tin-pot dictators they love so much for, these are the types that are fashioned after the idol from the Third Reich.

Don't be a fool, Steve. Don't be a fool, Vic. History will not be erased because you do not like it. And fiction will only materialize in your imagination. If you keep this up, people will deem you to be insane and treat you as such.