Conspiracy and Treason in 'What it would take?'

Here is a criminal conspiracy that rises to the level of high treason.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Israel first spied on negotiations which America and its partners were conducting with Iran. The Israelis then used the information they had gathered to undermine the talks by conspiring with American nationals who happened to be Jewish. To that end, the two created an opposition block to stand against the deal while it was negotiated, and plan to undermine it after its conclusion.

Getting nowhere despite their effort, and unable to torpedo the deal, the Israelis then raised the level of the conspiracy by asking the undecided members of the American Congress “what it would take to win their votes.” Well, there is no ambiguity here; the Israelis were offering a quid pro quo that should lead to charging those who made the offer with conspiracy, and should lead to charging those who accepted it with high treason. America must now investigate, prosecute, and let the chips fall where they may.

These Judeo-Israeli conspiratorial machinations were revealed in the article that was written by Adam Entous and Danny Yadron under the title: “U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress” and the subtitle: “National Security Agency's targeting of Israeli leaders also swept up the content of private conversations with U.S. lawmakers.” It was published on December 29, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

It is not the first time that the Jews have abused the hospitality of those who took them in, gave them shelter and treated them like honored guests, even family. It happened everywhere in the world for thousands of years, and it happened in America at the start of the Twentieth Century when the Jewish Mafia and the Italian Mafia were fused to the point of being considered one and the same. After a while, the Jews stabbed the Italians in the back, grabbed the accumulated loot, ran away, established legitimate businesses, and let the Italians go on to live on the avails of their mafia operations for a while longer. Poor suckers.

It happened again seven decades later when a convicted swindler named Melvin Weinberg convinced the American authorities to pay him a huge sum of money for showing them how to catch American lawmakers who had done nothing wrong up to that time, but would be inclined to break the law if entrapped to do so for a quid pro quo. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) went along with the scheme and called it – not Jewscam (meaning Jewish scam) which it was, but Abscam (meaning Arab scam) which it wasn't. Who else would come up with an idea like this but a Jew? Who else would risk being gassed and incinerated for it but a Jew?

The FBI then worked to tempt thus far unblemished law abiding legislators, enticing them to promise doing favors for what they thought were wealthy Arab businessmen trying to develop real estate, hotel and casino operations in America – in return for a kickback. Several state and federal lawmakers were later caught accepting the fictitious deals, were tried, convicted and thrown in jail. And not a single Arab – not one – was involved in this abusive Jewish operation misnamed Arab scam … something it never was.

That operation was an entrapment that caused those who looked at it to think of it as repugnant … including the judges who presided over the trials. And despite all that, each of the cases was appealed, and each lost on appeal. The result is that the “culprits” paid the fines where appropriate, and served their time in jail.

In contrast, the foreign criminals who came to America from Israel with only one thing in mind; to undermine America's national security by corrupting its lawmakers, were allowed to leave the country when finished, without as much as being questioned what they were doing in America. It is political correctness, you see?

With regard to the lawmakers who listened to the foreign pitch and did not report it to the police, they should be put on probation and on watch to make sure they will not succumb to similar temptations in the future.

As to those who listened to the foreign pitch and acted on it by voting the way they were instructed and against their president, these people must be charged with high treason and dealt with accordingly.

It is bad enough to see the Jewish Fifth Column operate in the country undisturbed. It is stupefying to know that the captains of the ship of state would mount a mutiny against their commander-in-chief when commanded to do so by a foreign agent. Have the people of America lost every ounce of pride they had in their country?

When muddling fails, try the transcendental

We, humans are different from the animals because we have the ability to transcend most of the quagmires in which we find ourselves, and keep muddling through till we pull out of them.

We do so by going above and beyond the tools that nature has written into our DNA in the form of instinctive impulses, and use our ingenuity. Those tools exist to insure our survival, but while they help us overcome most of the difficulties which are inflicted naturally on us, they fail most of the time to help us get over the difficulties which we create for ourselves and for each other.

This kind of difficulties is the quagmires from which it is nearly impossible to pull out by peaceful means. When a situation of this sort develops, a confrontation between humans ensues, resulting in jungle-like outcomes – that kingdom of animals. It is that the fittest survives, having done away with the weak, sometimes savagely.

However, being the intelligent animals that we are, we have managed to erect a number of philosophical constructs using constituents that range from simple words of wisdom to comprehensive religious mythologies – all of which help us navigate the difficulties we encounter when the competing interests of two or more parties clash. In such cases (call them modern human quagmires) the parties negotiate a compromise and go on to live better lives; or they do battle, at which time one party or both get hurt, even perish.

Fortunately for our race, it happens at times that men of high intellect and personal integrity come along and advocate a third way. It is to seek solutions that would be “out of the box”. We do this by transcending the problems at hand, imagining ourselves back at square one. There, we redesign the contentious situation by starting from scratch and reconstruct it in a way that gives everyone their due.

To see how this might work in a situation that seems intractable at this time, imagine the two extremes of (a) everyone in America having an arsenal of guns, and (b) no one in America but the police and the army having guns. Which, would you say, will be a more peaceful America? The answer is the one with no guns.

Now that we have that idea as a starting point, we can debate the pros and cons of letting only qualified people carry what sort of guns under what conditions. When we agree on something, we work out the modalities that will take us from where we stand now to where we ought to be.

Of course, to do this, we must accept that everyone is equal, has the same rights as everyone else, and is protected under laws that discriminate against no one. Would this work in America and every country in the world? It should work because this is what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees. Okay, but what about the rules that govern the relations between the nations themselves? Are these relations subjected to the same principles?

Well, that's another kettle of fish. It is that men of high intellect and personal integrity want the same rules to apply there too. But other people wish for the law of the jungle to prevail in international relations. That is, they want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, and want it to vanquish those who oppose it.

You can see that mentality at work in “The Mother of Peace,” an article that was written by Victor Davis Hanson, and published on December 29, 2015 in National Review Online. Hanson starts the article like this: “What Obama doesn't understand about human nature. Deterrence makes someone not do something.”

From there, the author goes on to construct a philosophical system that is based on fear of punishment where the dispenser of the punishment is a saintly America, a superpower that is surrounded by a demonic everyone else … except for the saintly Israel, of course.

What Hanson does not realize, perhaps, is that people who think like him have lived on this planet. Believing that war is the highest expression of human civilization, they heaped untold suffering, misery and holocausts on the human race. One of those characters gave himself the name Hitler. And Hanson should read up on him before writing another article like that.

Ramadi on everyone's Mind

Everyone understands the lesson in economics which says that when demand for an item increases, so does its value – which is why its price rises.

Well, that same principle also applies in the field of publicity. For example, if you give unlimited exposure to someone who is running for office, he moves to the front of the pack no matter what he says or does.

Unfortunately, the same thing can also happen in reverse. That is, the more bad publicity you give to someone, the more you'll hurt his chances to succeed in what he's doing. This is especially true if what he's doing depends on the moral support of the people you are reaching with your publicity drive.

However, despite the fact that bad publicity was heaped on President Obama – who is the commander-in-chief of America's armed forces – for saying that his quiet and steady strategy was working in the Levant, that strategy has succeeded. In fact, it has been winning for some time now against an enemy that lost almost half the land it had captured when it launched a surprise blitz in Syria and Iraq a while ago. And yet again, the Obama strategy won a big one when the Iraqi forces took back the city of Ramadi.

For the first time, the people (call them critics) who were giving Mr. Obama the bad publicity he did not deserve, are now acknowledging that the campaign against the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant (ISIL) is working as the chief described it. The sad part, however, is that those critics have only acknowledged the latest success without coupling their acknowledgment with a change in their thinking or their behavior.

You can see all that in two editorials that were published on December 29, 2015. One came in the Wall Street Journal under the title: “The Retaking of Ramadi” and the subtitle: “The victory has lessons for the battles for Mosul – and Syria.” The other came in the New York Daily News under the title: “One battle won” and the subtitle: “What the retaking of Ramadi means for the long struggle to defeat ISIS.”

The thing that should raise your eyebrow and make you want to scratch your head, is that you bump into the same old themes when reading those editorials. You encounter the following passage in the Wall Street Journal: “We're paying a price for the Obama Administration's long failure to train and arm...,” and you encounter the following passage in the New York Daily News: “The coalition that has punished ISIS from the air – too cautiously at times, thanks to President Obama's hesitant command...” They use different words but their message is the same.

There is no doubt that the motivation behind that child-like behavior is the naked attempt to diminish the value of Mr. Obama's stock in the eyes of an electorate that is wooed in this election season by his Democratic Party and by an opposing Republican Party which happens to be supported both by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Daily News.

The problem, however, is the fact that information of any kind that's pushed into the public domain is consumed not only by the American electorate but also various groups the world over. In fact, everywhere on the Planet, people see that information and hear it, including groups such as the Sunny Arabs who are needed by America's military to maintain the gains it has made. Note also that the Americans made those gains fighting against ISIS, not alone but shoulder to shoulder with their Iraqi comrades.

The information that's in the public domain is also seen and heard by an enemy that knows how to use it to improve its own military performance and messaging effort. The net result is that the people who criticize the Obama administration for not doing enough to defeat ISIS are the very people who undermine his effort. They do this much damage by providing moral aid and comfort to the enemy, and by providing him with propaganda material he can use to woo new recruits.

And that's not all that is negative as we can see by another nefarious message that's articulated in both editorials. The Wall Street Journal says this: “The motive behind the coalition is to fill the vacuum left by the lack of confidence in Obama.” The New York Daily News quotes someone saying: “the Islamic State is winning the battle for the hearts and minds in areas under its control.” It looks like the Islamic State owes a great deal to people like the editors of those two publications.

A Solution for America's ailing Democracy

It is funny – or maybe it's not funny at all – that the editors of the New York Times have a solution at their fingertips for the security situation of every country except their own.

For example, they can and they do – in an instant – articulate a solution for China, Russia, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Sudan and just about everyone else in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. And yet, here they are, writing a piece about America's security situation; an editorial that is devoid of a single hint as to how the country could solve its own problems.

It is that the editors of the Times believe they live in a democracy; the reason why they know everyone else's problem stems from the fact that they are not a democracy. Thus, to solve their problems, those countries must adopt the democratic form of governance, say the editors of the New York Times, and this will bring to them instant bliss.

So we ask: What is this democracy they talk about incessantly? And they say democracy, like the other systems of governance, is an ideological package-deal. What separates democracy from the others, however, is that it allows the people to govern themselves by electing representatives who do the bidding for them. This being the case, democracy is a self-correcting system, they go on to say, because it includes a subsystem of checks and balances; also the ultimate arbiter in the form of an electorate that periodically evaluates the performance of the incumbent governing team, and decides its fate.

What this means ultimately is that democracy has – built into it – an immune system that is analogous to what we see in biological organisms. Its function is to help the democracy heal itself when something goes wrong. But we know that organisms get violently ill at times, even die as a result. We must, therefore, question if the same cannot happen to a society that adheres to the democratic form of governance.

The answer is yes, the same can and does happen to democratic systems. A case in point is discussed in a piece that was written by the editors of the New York Times under the title: “A Fearful Congress Sits Out the War Against ISIS,” published in the Times on December 26, 2015. This is a very telling editorial because the security of a nation – as exemplified by the peace it seeks to establish and the wars it seeks to avoid – is supposed to be the highest priority of the governing team. And yet, America's team thinks differently, say the editors of the Times, but do not help with a suggestion of their own. Why is that? Because those editors only know how to solve the problems of everyone else … something they do with a snap of their fingers.

So then, what does the editorial say? It says that America's legislative branch of government – known as the Congress – is fearful of something. There is an ongoing war and a looming threat that must be addressed, say the editors, but the representatives of the people are afraid to tackle the subject; so they sit it out and do nothing. And we wonder: if the representatives behave in this manner with regard to the highest item on their priority list, what do they do with the other items. And the question that comes to mind is this: Can we still consider America's democracy to be a self-correcting system? If not, can its adherents continue to claim it is the best system ever devised?

But wait a minute. The fact is that the members of Congress are tackling the subject, say the editors of the New York Times; it is just that they are not tackling it honestly or frontally or in a manner that would allow the people to evaluate the merit of what they do. Here is a montage of the words and expressions they use in several paragraphs to make those points:

“The spending bill Congress passed includes explicit mentions of the military campaign and a budget line that will allow the Pentagon to continue fighting … the White House and leaders of Congress have given up on drafting a new authorization for the use of military force that would set clear parameters for the conflict … lawmakers see plenty of risk in casting a vote that could come back to haunt them … they are unwisely emboldening the executive branch to overstep its powers.”

And we ask: Is this an ideological organism that has gotten violently ill? Is it at risk of dying? Look what the editors say is happening in other democracies that are tackling the same subject: “There is political consensus in the West that a military response is needed to fight ISIS. Congress has been unwilling to hold the type of substantive deliberations lawmakers in Germany and Britain conducted on what they are willing to contribute to the effort.”

Now, given that we readily acknowledge the existence of a difference between the democratic system and the other systems, would it not be appropriate to ask what the difference may be between the fearless democracies of Europe and the fearful democracy of America?

When fear obliterates the checks and balances that bind the Legislator and the Executive, and when it keeps them in a permanent state of paralysis, does it not mean that the time has come to diagnose America's illness and work to find a remedy for it?

What if we begin by stating the truth that contrary to the functioning democracies of Europe, the Congress of the United States wakes up from deep sleep and revs up its engine only when considering Israel's business, then falls asleep after fulfilling the needs of that entity without taking up America's business?

What if we consider this to be the unmistakable sign that America's democracy has been corrupted deliberately so as to fulfill the needs of Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel?

What if we conclude that the solution to North America's security problems lies in shouting: Goddammit, we are mad like hell and we're not going to take it anymore. Let the Jews solve their bleeping problems alone because we have bleeping problems of our own to solve.

Assessing the IQ and Veracity of the Assessor

Clifford D. May who is president of an outfit of clowns calling itself Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and a supporter of Israel, an entity that's the only terrorist state in the world today, has written this: “The Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's leading sponsor of terrorism,” without telling why he insists – in his subtle way – to call Iran and not America the sponsor of Israel's terrorist activities.

May wrote those words in an article that came under the title: “The early returns on Obama's Iran deal,” published on December 23, 2015 in The Washington Times. To show that a clown who also supports Israel can only advocate thievery, he laments that the agreement concluded between the world and Iran is meant to return to that country its own assets.

Imagine the scandal in having to return to its owner what you “borrowed” without obtaining prior permission. What happened to the Jewish religious concept of calling what you borrow “disputed” asset, and keeping it borrowed for ever? Talk to the Palestinians whose country has been borrowed one piece at a time, and remains borrowed to this day.

While that concept is maintained for Iran, May and all those like him, would have liked to sue the country on trumped up charges – which is the way that Jews always do these things – and have a retarded or a corrupt judge give Iran's assets to the Jews instead. This would transform the disputed into compensation, a method by which the Jews have lived like leeches at the expense of others since time immemorial.

The central point of the May article is that in order to free Iran's assets, President Obama violated the process by which the system works. This is how he put it: “A deal so consequential ought to have been framed as a treaty … Obama was uninterested.” Well, it wasn't framed as a treaty because “why make enormous concessions in exchange for anything so fuzzy?” said an official at the State department who explained that the success of the agreement will depend on the extensive verification measures put in place, and Iran's understanding that the sanctions can be reimposed.

And then, plagued by a low IQ, and not realizing what he just did, Clifford May lauded that explanation. He did it trying to nail the Iranians for something they did not do, thus proved the point that was articulated by the State Department. This is how May did himself in: “In case you missed it: Both of those claims have since been tested.” Well then, if that's the case, why did you, Clifford May, start the article by complaining that Obama did not follow the proper procedure? Bad Jewish habit I suppose, huh.

Looking closely at the author's reasoning to see what might have motivated him to proceed in the manner that he did, you find it to be the same old Jewish habit of trying to have it both ways. In fact, from one side of the mouth, he says that the Obama process was flawed; from the other side of the mouth, he says that the process has worked so well, it revealed that Iran has cheated. What can be more ambiguous, more confusing, and more Jewish than that?

Still, continuing to do things in a typically Jewish fashion, the author looked for and gathered points from everywhere; points he lined like dots on a canvas … connecting them into a concoction that resulted in a picture so artificial, it bore no resemblance to reality.

As a matter of fact, he relied on the weasel saying: “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” to make the false claim that the IAEA said Iran had a secret nuclear weapons program. This is a blatant lie. The IAEA never said that. What it said was that a small part of Iran's declared enrichment program was undeclared; nothing worse than that. It also said that the inspectors found no evidence of weaponization. And that's the essential point, not the enrichment.

Well, this should have been the end of discussion, should it not? Yes it should have, but not if the author is a Jewish clown that took on the task of defending what he says are democracies. He goes on to quote another clown (#2) who said: “Not finding much doesn't mean much.” And why is that? Because the Iranians “refused to come clean,” said clown # 2.

Can you imagine what this means, my friend? Think about it. You walk into a store, you buy something, pay for it and walk out. A fake cop accosts you and accuses you of stealing something. You say you stole nothing. He searches you and finds nothing. He arrests you anyway on the grounds that this proves you're not “coming clean.” This is so very Jewish, so very moronic and so very deserving of a severe punishment.

Clifford May goes on to attack the media, especially the BBC, for not reporting that the Iranians are not coming clean with something they did not do. And he rejoices that the clowns in the American Congress of morons are so distressed, they are joining him and the other clowns in trying to scuttle the return of Iran's assets to Iran.

What is happening to this world?

The Power to engender mass Delusion

I am going to do something I promised myself I'll never do, but now realize I must change my mind because much is at stake.

I am going to tell what I wrote more than four decades ago when there was no internet, and all that I was permitted to do was to send my missives to a publication that wasn't on the blacklist, and let it circulate my thoughts among its members and beyond.

The year was the early to the mid-1970s, a time when the media were whipping up hysteria about President Richard Nixon being the harbinger of an apocalypse that was sure to hit America if that man remained in office. The trick the media used to justify what they were doing was to take frequent polls they said showed the public to be in agreement with them. Well, I felt it was a cheap shot for the media to cause the hysteria and then justify it by the fact that the public believed everything they said about Nixon who may not have been a saint but was not the demon they portrayed either. I became so angry, I suggested something.

I wrote an open letter to the media telling them they were on a power trip and were winning. But that was not enough, I said, considering that they can double their winnings. The way to do it was this: Now that they have shown they can sway public opinion in one direction, they should reverse their stand to show that they can sway public opinion in the other direction too. This will prove they are twice as powerful.

They did not listen to me, of course, but retained the old habit; one that got worse as they learned to let out a louder and sharper shrill. You can see how far they have come when you go over an article whose title is: “Obama misses the mark,” and whose subtitle is: “The president and Hillary make the case that Obamaworld is a secure place to live.” It was written by David A. Keene, a former honcho at the NRA, and now opinion editor at The Washington Times where the article was published.

Keene writes the following about an existential threat he says is posed by potential terrorists: “it does worry Americans who realize that there are people out there who want to destroy our country and would use a weapon of mass destruction to do so if they ever get their hands on one.” He chose to mention weapon of mass destruction because the point was made that Americans kill each other, year after year, at a rate that no group of terrorists can match – not even once – before being wiped out. And so he, who is of the gun lobby, is trying to draw a sharp contrast between the foreign terrorists and the local mass killers who may cause as much carnage using all sorts of guns, but would have no access to weapons of mass destruction.

That argument is not working for him, however, because he does not say how the public came to fear a foreign threat to the very existence of America if not for the media that has been whipping up hysteria to that effect. Furthermore, he does not say what the chances are that the terrorists will obtain the dreaded weapon. Or why they would be more dangerous than the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans and the Pakistanis who already possess – not one weapon of mass destruction but – an arsenal of them, and do not always agree with America's foreign policy?

Also, when Keene talks about people “who want to destroy our country,” he means to say the military obliteration of America, something that even the Russians could not do with the thousands of nuclear weapons, the massive missile arsenal, the air force, the surface navy and the submarine fleet they possess – all of which match those of America or surpass them in some places. And yet, our author asserts that the American people have come to “realize” that the terrorists can do what no one else can ... a fantastic delusion that can only be asserted by a deluded man writing for a deluded publication.

So the question to ask is this: How can some people in America be gripped by a fantasy of this magnitude if not for the system of mass deception that the media have become … operating as they do in a system of liberal democracy that has itself been corrupted – not by foreign kids who happen to be Muslim – but a Jewish Establishment that created the movement to which they flock, and continues to motivate America into destroying the very Arab regimes who fight the newly acquired ideology of those kids?

America bankrolls Israel, not Iran

When you see Jewish American pundits (who show by their roster of advocacy to be more Israeli than Napoleon Bonaparte was French) tell America how to treat the rest of the world, you begin to think that Israel bankrolls America and not the other way around.

When you see those Jews tell America to get tough with Iran because that republic mistreats its people, you begin to think that Israel is a model republic where African Jews, Arab Jews and non-Jews of every ethnic background are treated the same as Caucasian Jews from Europe and America.

When you study these matters in depth to ascertain that no one is lying to you, the truth you discover makes you wonder why America continues to bankroll Israel, and why it continues to treat that entity not like the pariah that it is, but the cherished nation it was never meant to be. And you begin to see that the relationship which exists between America and its Jews could not have developed naturally the way that relationships did through history, but developed demonically the way that disasters in the making always have their beginnings.

And so, you study that phenomenon; a decision you take to understand what the Jewish pundits do that dulls the American intellectual landscape. And one of the articles you unearth that promises to help you in that regard came under the title: “Washington is closing its eyes to Iran's persecution of Christians,” written by Benny Avni and published on December 23, 2015 in the New York Post.

To set the scene, Benny Avni the Jew, decrees that “Christmas is a good time to take stock of oppressed Christians around the world.” Because no one is breathing down his neck to question this premise, let alone push back against it, Avni goes on to ask the following question with absolute confidence: “Why not look at a place that Washington tries to warm up to, and therefore overlook?”

Having attracted the attention of the Christian readers by singling out the “oppressed Christians in Iran,” he does the very Jewish thing of using those Christians as a stepping stone from where he proceeds to fulfill what he is passionate about. With the second step, he generalizes the idea of Iran being an oppressor. He does it like this: “Iran's attempt to present itself as a champion of its Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities can lull us...” He now takes the third and last step: “President Rouhani brought along the sole Jewish member of Iran's parliament.” And that's what it's all about. His passion is not Christians but the status of Jews in Iran.

Well, you had set out to understand what the Jewish pundits do to dull the intellectual landscape in America, and you discovered the three-step approach they employ – that which goes like this: (1) talk to your interlocutor about him … Christianity if he is Christian; (2) generalize the discussion by including everyone else; (3) single out and zero in on the Jews. So now, you ask the inevitable question: What's the purpose of all this?

It does not take you long to discover the purpose of that exercise. It is embedded in this statement: “The 8,000 Jews left in Iran may not be molested outright, but they're banned from teaching Hebrew.” That number rings the bell inside your head. It's because the population of Iran is 80 million. It means there is one Jew per 10,000 Iranians. And that explains why there is only one Jewish representative in the Iranian Parliament.

And this is what distresses America's Jews. After all, with a ratio that does not exceed 1.5 percent the general population, the Jews in America control a fifth of the federal senate; and the trend is repeated more or less in that same fashion in the state legislatures. Thus, what they seek to do is use America's power and prestige to duplicate that feat everywhere else in the world, including Iran.

Benny Avni seeks to do that by returning to the subject of Iran's persecution of Christians. He discusses the subject at length to motivate someone in particular: “It'd be nice if Kerry could demand that unless Iran changes its behavior, we won't deliver our end of the deal … Even that's not enough. We should demand changes in the appalling human-rights situation in Iran … Time to turn up the heat and highlight religious persecution in Iran.”

Never mind that this approach never worked for the Jews before. That's because other than Palestine and Israel, America does not bankroll anyone else. Still, the Jews keep coming back to that theme because it is the only tool they have in their toolbox, and because they do not understand the expression: enough is enough.

Two competing Analogies for the Mideast

Whether or not we realize it, we often communicate by making analogies that illustrate and explain what we say. At times, the analogy is so clear; we readily see what it means. At other times, the analogy can be wrapped in a rhetoric that proves too difficult to parse … but we make the effort to understand what the author is trying to communicate, anyway.

Years of communicating with others in one of the several languages I know, have taught me that the best way to illustrate situations which fall in the realm of the humanities, is to use analogies which fall in the realm of the sciences. And this is how I'll proceed to explain my point of view with regard to the current situation in the Levant; also to respond to an article that was written by Richard Cohen.

The article in question came under the title: “No, Mr. President, staying out of Syria didn't save lives. It cost them.” It was written by Richard Cohen as mentioned earlier, and was published on December 21, 2015 in the Washington Post. That title is clear as to the content of the article, a point of view with which I disagree.

Whatever the exact moment or the reason why the Levant imploded into the mess it is now, explanations as to how that situation came to be was given by various pundits and talking heads. Looking at the reasons why they say things happened the way that they did, and why history unfolded in the manner that it did, we may parallel those reasons with one of two analogies we take from simple and easy to understand science.

The first analogy is about a forest that's on fire. Regardless as to what started the fire or why, the way to prevent it from consuming the entire forest, is to go ahead of it and cut a few trees thus create a corridor that is wide enough to prevent the fire from spreading past the corridor. The net result is that in order to save the forest, we caused a small damage (cutting a few trees) to save all the other trees.

Whether or not the people who have advocated American intervention in Syria and those who do now, cite that analogy, their explanation follows a reasoning which parallels the storyline of the forest on fire. The essence of their argument is that American smart bombs added to Assad's barrel bombs may at first cause a little more damage, but America's bombs will eventually prevent the barrel bombs from spreading throughout Syria.

The other analogy is about an oil tanker that is leaking its cargo. The gooey slick is growing and spreading in all directions. To prevent an environmental catastrophe you must do several things at the same time. You must contain the slick by circling it with a floating belt. You must get a crew that will work on plugging the hole in the tanker from where the oil is leaking. And you must call on the available vessels – which are equipped with pumps that suck leaked oil – to come and lend a hand.

Whether or not the people who warn against American intervention in Syria cite that analogy, their explanation follows a reasoning that parallels the storyline of the leaky tanker. The essence of their argument is that the situation in the Levant is so precarious, what needs to be done is not create more violence, but do the painstaking work that is required on many fronts at the same time. These would be fronts like the political, economic, diplomatic and reconstructive participation of all the stakeholders.

The question now is which of the two analogies best describes what was needed in Syria: was it the American bombing of the country or the patient and quiet work that was undertaken by President Obama? This question resolved, we ask: what now? How should America handle the situation going forward?

To help us answer those questions, we can look at something we have so far neglected, and draw another analogy that may help. We begin with the observation that the destruction of Iraq has sent shock waves everywhere in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Because shock waves dampen by themselves, the best way to diminish their effect is to let them die a natural death.

The mistake you can make is to try dampening the shock wave by opposing it with another shock wave. This will aggravate the problem further, which is what America will do if it tried to intervene militarily in the Levant.

Expanding the Machinations of Canalization

The best way to define the word 'canalization' is to do it with the use of an example. A good one would be that of the Jewish women who were given special training by the rabbis of an earlier era, to mingle with the young Muslim women who were intrigued by the Women's Liberation Movement sweeping North America at the time, and brainwash them.

The Jewish women went to work, tried as best they could, and succeeded on a number of occasions to manipulate the emotions and thinking processes of the Muslim women they met. They got them to divert the anger they had developed towards men, and direct it towards their Muslim religion. This is how canalization can be defined. And so, proven to be a psychological tool that has delivered on a number of cases, the Jewish establishment has revived it and expanded it for use in other endeavors.

You can see how that establishment is doing it, when you study the article that came under the title: “If Americans Are 'Scared to Death' – It's Because Government Has failed Them,” written by Jonah Goldberg and published on December 18, 2015 in National Review Online. When you are hit with something like this, two questions come to mind, and they beg for answers. The first question is this: Are Americans really scared to death? The second is this: If some are scared, what are they scared of?

Goldberg wants you to believe that Americans are scared of something that the government has the obligation to protect them against, but is not. He wants you to believe that the people are scared to death not because there is one gun per person in America, or that the people kill each other to the tune of a 100,000 per year with or without a gun – but afraid of foreign terrorists. Goldberg wants you to believe this much despite the fact that the statistics are showing that the chances someone in America will be hurt or killed by a friend or a relative to be hundreds of times higher than being hurt or killed by a foreign terrorist.

So now, there is this question: How can the Jews pull off a feat of this magnitude? Well, canalization is the secret weapon they use. You see, dear reader, it is normal for people to feel angry and humiliated when a foreigner comes into their homeland and manages to disrupt their lives. Many border skirmishes in history were started because of this, and many wars resulted when the skirmishes were not contained.

The fact that a handful of non-state actors, usually kids, can pull off a feat like that is even more infuriating and more humiliating. Thus, to answer the earlier questions, the reality is not that Americans are scared to death they will be killed by terrorists, it is that they are seething with anger their “proud” nation will be humiliated by a handful of young nobodies from far away lands.

Still, when you have this much angry energy, and you have the brainwashing skills that the Jews are reputed to possess, it is possible to imagine them canalizing the anger of the people, turning it into hatred for the foreigners who would do this to America … and make it all sound like the people are afraid they will be hurt or killed by foreign kids coming to them from far away places.

More importantly, the Jews are managing to direct the anger of the people into hatred for the government they were made to believe had 'failed' to protect them. But when the people realized that the government could not put a sentinel at every door to protect every family, they looked for another reason to hate their government. For that, some Americans turned to the Jews who pretended to be American themselves when in fact were Israelis at heart. And the people were inundated with rhetoric to the effect that their government had failed to develop a foreign policy that would keep the terrorists at bay.

That is where the Jewish establishment came into the picture, offering a foreign policy that serves the interests of Israel. Guess what else that policy does; it motivates the foreigners to do to America what America is doing to them on the advice of the Jews. And the vicious cycle is meant to go on and on for, it is what the Jews want.

This is why we must suspect statements like this: “Only 34 percent approve of President Obama's handling of the Islamic State, and more Americans are worried about terrorism than at any time since the aftermath of 9/11.” Both could be true but do not mean that Americans are 'scared to death' that a foreign terrorist is about to pop out of nowhere and kill them.

What after the Crushing, Ralph Peters?

Published on December 20, 2015 in the New York Post is an article that was written by Ralph Peters under the title: “How to crush ISIS”.

And that's exactly what the article is about; it is what the author wants the American military to do. In fact, in one of the ten points whose rubric reads: “Accomplish the mission and leave,” Peters says this: “Go in, do the job, get out … Surprise them; slaughter them; leave.” He could not be more succinct.

The article is a comprehensive explanation as to why Peters, who is a retired U.S. Army officer, felt it necessary to devise a war plan. What follows is what he says in the first sentence of the article: “An American president with no military experience, little grasp of history and an outdated mental map of the Middle East … potentially a Republican next year.” He is worried that the civilian overseers are getting in the way of the military doing its job, and that the trend will continue even if a Republican gets elected President next year.

In fact, under the rubric that reads: “Stop pretending that war can be waged gently,” Peters says this: “Kill the enemy. Accept that there will be civilian casualties and collateral damage. Get the lawyers out of the targeting process and off the battlefield.” In other words, he says that when it comes to war, you must trust that the generals will do the right thing. And he could not be clearer and more in error than that.

The question is this: What then? What will come after the crushing of ISIS if, indeed, that's something that can be done? Surprisingly, the author answers this question. He does it under the same rubric in which he counsels accomplishing the mission and leaving. Here is his answer: “No nation-building … punitive expeditions, not nation-building where there are no nations.”

And there lies the problem. It is not that nation-building was ever a good idea; it is that messing with the borders of nations is always a bad idea. The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a bad idea. So was the destruction of Iraq. As well, the current discussion about breaking up Syria is a horrible idea. Worse is the drive to create a Kurdish entity. In fact, the creation of Israel turned out to be an ongoing crime against humanity that promises, by comparison, to make the Holocaust a bedtime story for children.

All of that harks back to the bad old days when trouble began to mount in the wake of the artificial drawing of the Middle Eastern map; a project that was meant to serve the needs of the colonial powers of the day. As to the current troublemaker, it's the little fart that is Israel; the wannabe colonial power that's trying to get there using America's muscle to achieve the miracle it cannot realize by itself.

The reality, however, is that messing with nations is at the origin of what got us in the current mess. To try and mess with those nations again under the guise of fixing the earlier mistakes, will only compound those mistakes and create a bigger problem. That's because the most powerful element motivating the people who would die to rectify the situation they inherited, is the sense of grievance that was generated when the status of their homeland was messed up by foreigners. Imagine how they will feel if history repeats itself – unfolding this time under their noses. If you want to know, a fury in hell will by comparison sound like a bedtime story for children.

Look at it this way: Some people are talking about a percentage (ranging from 7% to 15%) of the Muslim population, which they say supports jihad at this time. Forget these numbers because that many people will not need to take up arms to mess up the world real bad. Think instead 100% of the Muslim population that will profoundly and eternally abhor what is being done to it.

Moreover, Islam is a billion and a half strong and growing faster than any other religion. In addition, there may be as many as a billion non-Muslims supporting their cause today, and the number is galloping as time moves on.

That's what will result if the Ralph Peters war plan is implemented as described. The only thing we can predict at this point is that the more you fight the Muslims without solving the root cause of the problems that feed their anger, the stronger they will get, and the more of them who will seek revenge.

Whatever form their revenge will take – economic, diplomatic or otherwise – the generals will not stop them, and everyone will end up with a bloody nose.

Selling the Brooklyn Bridge and Snake Oil too

Nothing seems to happen these days without a Jew from Israel telling the Americans: Boy, have I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you. And guess what; if you don't have the cash, I'll take snake oil because I know I can sell that too – surely to someone that's even a bigger sucker than you … most probably another gullible American.

Well, it happened again; this time the big mouth is Adam Cohen who wrote an article that was published on December 20, 2015 in the New York Daily News. It came under the title: “How Israel fights Islamist terror” and the subtitle: “Lessons and warnings to Americans who are contemplating fighting ISIS on the ground.”

Knowing something about Israel's military adventures, the first thought that comes to mind is the question: When and where did Israel fight the Islamists? Expecting an earth-shattering revelation, you soon discover that the charlatan is doing what charlatans always do, which is to say anything that will advance his argument in the one direction where the Jews have scored some success. It is to lie to the American people and get their Congress of idiots to pay handsomely for useless information, useless promises and useless accomplishments.

What Cohen says is that for this occasion, he has conveniently and miraculously shape-shifted the Sunni Palestinian Hamas, and the Shiite Lebanese Hezbollah into the Islamic State in Palestine and Lebanon (ISPL) to make it sound like the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) so that he may conduct the Brooklyn-Bridge/Snake-Oil transaction with the Americans who'll listen to him. After all, previous Jewish charlatans sold the Americans on the idea that it was they who taught America's farmers how to irrigate their fields and save water, and taught America's military brass how to design, fabricate and use drones.

So then, what is our latest charlatan saying he wants the Americans to believe will be useful to them? Well, talking about Muslims, he says, “many subscribe to a moderate form of Islam.” Is this something that the Americans did not know before? Okay, what else is he saying? Talking about preparing to go into battle, he says this: “You need drones in the air, tapped wires and undercover personnel on the ground to keep tabs on movements.” Is this something that the Americans did not know before? Stop asking annoying questions.

Given the uselessness of that information, you wonder what exactly this Judeo-Israeli charlatan is trying to accomplish. To find out, you keep reading his article, and he miffs you again with this revelation: “Against Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel has intimate knowledge, acquired over decades … hierarchy, language, culture and habits.” Well? Is he suggesting that before getting into a shooting war with ISIL, America must spend the next few decades acquiring intimate knowledge about these people's hierarchy, language, culture and habits? Or is that just poppycock and hot air?

It must be poppycock and hot air because Adam Cohen begins to unmask himself at this point. It is that he gives you the feeling he is only saying what will advance his argument in the one direction where he believes he can score some success. It is to engage in the Jewish specialty of badmouthing those who are not here to defend themselves. This time, Cohen takes on Hamas, the Palestinian group against which Israel launched several assaults, lost them all, and was condemned by the whole world for the war crimes it keeps committing.

To mask that reality, Cohen tells his American readers that Hamas uses children as human shield when, in fact, there is no proof to this effect. On the contrary, the existing proof consists of several videos showing Israeli troops looting Palestinian homes, and when caught, making their getaway using Palestinian children as shield. There are also legal depositions made by Israeli soldiers who testified to that effect.

Undeterred and shameless, the writer continues to tell Americans how to fight a war: “precision artillery and warplanes are used to provide close support to the ground forces – allowing them to move house-to-house, room-to-room … We frequently found ourselves going door-to-door that might be booby-trapped … In the last operation, Hamas detonated an explosive device taking the lives of three of my brothers in arms.”

Remembering what happened before the invasion of Iraq when the Jews falsely predicted that the Americans will be welcomed with kisses and flower petals, Cohen avoids repeating that fiasco, saying this instead: “US troops should not expect to be welcomed as liberators. Foreigners are not welcome.” He stops short of saying: Stay home, America; you have no business going there. And that would have been the best advice.

The New York Times is a self-declared ToT

ToT stands for Tool of Terrorism.

If we define 'approval of terrorism' as the acceptance of horror such as pain, death or destruction – inflicted on the innocent, deliberately or inadvertently, by design or by collateral damage – only if the horror is committed by some people and not by others; it must be said that the “left leaning” New York Times and a number of “right wing” publications in America, are tools of terrorism.

That's because the editors of those publications are choosy when it comes to who they believe are allowed to defend their people against terror, and who are not. In fact, for some time now, they have been countenancing the kind of “defensive wars” which are conducted by the people they approve of, such as the Israelis, and the people who collaborate with America. Guess what else those editors do; they cheer for the terrorists when they score against the regimes that decide to defend their people without obtaining permission from America.

The New York Times, together with a number of right wing print publications, and such audio-visual giants as Fox News and CNN, have been playing that game insidiously for a while. They started playing it when a number of Arab countries decided to take care of the troublemakers in their midst such as Libya and Yemen – and did it without consulting with America or asking it to lead them.

The Times has now come out and shown its true colors. Its editors wrote a piece under a title that reads: “Doubts About Saudi Arabia's Antiterrorism Coalition” published on December 19, 2015. As can be seen, the editors did not want to break the news gently to the readers; they hit them in the face with the first word they put down: “Doubts,” they wrote. They go on to say there are doubts about a Saudi Coalition that does not include Israel (which they did not name this time), and is not led by America. To them, this is intolerable infamy!

Written from end to end in that frame of mind; reading the Times editorial is like watching sewage run along the gutter. And the stink you must put up with is so overwhelming; you know it can only be Jewish. You know this much because right off the bat, the editors complain that “there is no clarity about what the [Arab coalition] will actually do.”

Of course there is no clarity; the information is not all in yet … and will not be till it's time to release it. The plan has just been announced by the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia who nevertheless declared that “nothing is off the table.” This means that Arab troops will eventually be sent to Syria, and a massive effort to counter the IS propaganda will be mounted. Stay tuned, and you'll get the details in due course. This is how professionals do things.

No, no, no, say the editors of the Times; you people have no idea what you must do to be effective. Let America conduct the military and propaganda wars, and do two things yourselves. First, do the mea culpa, not just in words but in deeds. That is, admit you are at the root of the problem by ending your financing of “the Wahhabi religious schools and clerics that are spreading the extremist doctrine at the heart of the IS ideology.” Second, do the only thing you can be good at doing; give your money away. That is, “help weak countries in North Africa that are battling extremists, like Tunisia and Mali, pay soldiers and security experts.” Other than that, you should partner with Israel or partner with America or sit down quietly and shut up.

Now that you, my friend, have gotten used to the stench of the Times editorial, you go over it once more to see if you can determine how those who wrote it might have acquired the stream of stinky ideas they are propounding. Rereading the piece, you trip on some clues in the first three paragraphs – exemplified by the way that each one is ended. In the first paragraph, the editors talk about Saudi Arabia's new project, ending it like this: “there are many reasons to doubt how effective the plan will be.” That's typically Jewish baseless negativity.

In the second paragraph, they talk about the Security Council resolution which calls for a cease-fire and talks to end the civil war in Syria. They end it like this: “whether that can pave the way to end the conflict is also highly questionable.” That too is typically Jewish baseless negativity.

In the third paragraph, they talk about the 'inexperienced' defense minister of Saudi Arabia who said he will establish a joint operation center to fight terrorism across the Muslim world. They end the paragraph like this: “Just what that means is unclear.” This is also typically Jewish baseless negativity.

To understand what makes these people spawn all that negativity, we need to know something about the word 'essay.' It is derived from the French word 'essayer' which means to try, to test, to weigh. Thus, an editorial about a project that has just been revealed cannot be an opinion piece. It can only be an essay through which the writers probe the possibilities and talk about them in tentative terms ... Unless … Unless the editors prepare themselves for something each time that they are summoned to sit around the editorial table.

From the looks of it, the editors of the New York Times seem to prepare themselves by getting their skulls filled with ejaculated moral syphilis of the Jewish kind. The reality is that when it comes to the Middle East and North Africa, those dickheads go to the editorial table with skulls that brim with Jewish ejaculated morality.

You can deduce that much from the way they cheer the terrorists at the end of their current editorial. This is what they say: “It shouldn't take long to see whether the proposal has substance or is just an attempt to divert attention from Saudi Arabia's disastrous military intervention in Yemen.” This echoes the cheers you hear come out the Fox News and CNN cable networks every time that the terrorists score in Yemen or anywhere else against an Arab regime. They are the ToTs.

Calling on Schumer to put on a trembling Act

There was a time when the Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, used to put on an act of trembling his body in front of the cameras for a reason. He would do it while expressing concern about one thing or another in a voice that was high pitched and made to sound like the choking voice of a terrified soul.

The last time that the Senator put on this act is when the international Dubai Ports Company had applied to manage a number of ports in America, using as it was, American employees and no foreigners. Still, Schumer let it be known that he was terrified because he judged that the company will have divided loyalties between serving America and serving its Arab roots. All this, despite the fact that there never was an Arab fifth column in America or anywhere in the world, serving Arab interest at the expense of the host country.

Chuck Schumer is now being called upon by the American Jewish lobby to stage his trembling act for a reason. The lobby being the fifth column whose publicly stated purpose in life is to fix the world – beginning with America – and make it safe for the Jews to live in. That lobby wants Schumer to tremble this time because the guardians of the American ship of state are refusing to open the country to Israel, and treat it as if it were not a foreign country but a part of the “perfect” American Union. All of that despite the string of revelations about Israeli spying on America, the Jonathan Pollard affair and the other scandals.

The problem in the eyes of the Jewish lobby is that America treats the Jews like everyone else when it comes to granting an American citizen the kind of security clearance that would allow him or her to hold a sensitive position. Apparently, the lobby discovered this reality only now. It happened when a Jewish dentist applied for a job, and was denied the necessary clearance to hold it because of his ties to Israel.

Bret Stephens was the first (as far as I know) to break the story in an article he published in the prestigious Wall Street Journal under the title: “A Security Concern Due to Divided Loyalties” and the subtitle: “A dentist wants to serve America's military. But having a mother in Israel can be disqualifying.” It was published on December 16, 2015. Two days later, the editors of the New York Daily News wrote a piece under the title: “Anti-Semite or anti-dentite?” and the subtitle: “Why the Navy doubts the loyalty of a Jewish dentist.”

Normally, I would have ignored a matter such as this. But what prompted me to take it up this time is the way that the editors of the Daily News end their piece. This is what they say: “As a mental exercise, make him Irish and Catholic. Would the U.S. bar such a dentist from serving? Never.... This is about a special mistrust of Israel and anti-Semitism. Sen. Chuck Schumer is moving to investigate. Damn right, he must.”

When stalwarts of the lobbying Jewish fifth column in America such as Bret Stephens and the editors of the New York Daily News are joined by Israel's man in the American Congress (the way that Schumer describes himself) to do Israel's bidding by investigating America for wanting to protect itself, the Jews demonstrate that they see themselves as a special case. And they consider Israel's interests – however small and trivial they may be – to be priority number one, trumping America's priorities – however large and serious they may be.

In spite of that being the fantasy by which the Jews of the American lobby operate, it stands to reason that America's protectors should want to treat the Jews who have deep ties with Israel, like everyone else. After all, Israel is a foreign country that's in the habit of spying on America and stealing its secrets – sometimes even selling those secrets to America's potential enemies.

Now, given that Irish Catholics do not spy on America for the benefit of Ireland, the Irish can talk to their mothers all they want, and no one will fret about it. But if it happens that an Irish person is denied clearance for whatever reason, you can be certain that no prestigious publication will take up his case and publicize it. And certainly – CERTAINLY – no one will wail that this is a manifestation of anti-Catholicism or anti-Celticim.

The fact that the Jews are calling their case an act of anti-Semitism, tells you they could not find a reasonable argument for granting clearance to every Jew that asks for it. There is, of course, the notion that this would be the politically correct thing to do – especially that Jewish correctness always comes with the threat of being accused of anti-Semitism.

And so, it is time to tell Chuck Schumer to tremble all he wants because he's gettin' nothin' this time.

They say she looks bad but she looks good

They say Egypt looks bad now, but the reality is that Egypt looks better than ever before. That's what Michelle Dunne and her new protégé, Nik Nevin have written in the article that came under the title: “Egypt Now Looks a Lot Like It Did in 2010, Just Before 2011 Unrest,” published on December 17, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

For a long time, this woman has had an unhealthy fixation on Egypt. No matter what the country did, she hated it, and always said so. The difference between the past and now, however, is that she no longer ends her articles with a roaring wail to the effect that America and her allies must punish Egypt anyway they can.

She doesn't wail now because she knows she'll be straining her vocal cords for nothing, given that no one in America or anywhere in the world listens to her anymore. So the question that comes to mind is this: Who is she trying to impress with her continued campaign to insult and denigrate Egypt?

Well, you may analyze what she says using any method you wish, and you'll always have to conclude that her fixation on Egypt has something to do with her psychological makeup. That's another way of saying that the lady is a psycho. And when someone is in that condition, you don't try to understand them. You only describe what they say and what they do.

It must also be said that Michelle Dunne is a very unlucky woman for writing and publishing an article like that at a time when there appeared in Forbes Magazine a report that's written under a title which read: “10 Top Cities Around the World To Launch your Startup,” and where Cairo – which is Egypt's capital city – is listed. Before listing the cities, however, or discussing their achievements, the report explains what it's all about. And this is what it says:

“An infographic showing the top 10 places to launch your startup holds a few surprises. Richard Madison of The Brighton School of Business and Management … first highlights best startup countries, and then drills down to their most outstanding cities.” The ten cities are then listed and discussed in some detail.

What follows is what is said about Cairo in particular – and Egypt in general:

“The mass of young, educated and enlightened graduates in Egypt are now turning out an array of startups … They are exploiting the birth of many new accelerators and crowd funding campaigns … Cairo is also home to some of the best engineering talent in MENA [Middle East North Africa,] and that has to do with the quality of universities they have there.”

What makes Michelle Dunne so unlucky is that she is so misinformed … Or perhaps she knows how the young in Egypt were affected by the events of the past four years, except that her psychotic condition forbids her from telling the truth. Instead of painting a picture of the new Egypt as it is described in the Forbes report by those who know what they are talking about, look what she says:

“Youth are repressed or manipulated … a new party that won a surprising 50 seats is led by a 24-year-old supporter of President Sisi and called Future of the Homeland … there is no dynamic youth-led movement to protest peacefully.”

Protest what, Michelle? What do you want them to protest? That they form a mass of young, educated and enlightened graduates? That they are turning out an array of startups? That they are exploiting the birth of many new accelerators and crowd funding campaigns? That they live in Cairo, a city that is home to some of the best engineering talent in MENA? That the quality of universities they have there is second to none? Is that what's gnawing at your heart, Michelle? What's lighting an inferno in your belly?

Could it be that your condition is so advanced, Michelle Dunne, you cannot stomach the idea that a 24-year-old has established a new party, has won 50 seats in parliament and has decided to support his President instead of experiencing the joy of going down in the streets to riot, burn, loot and attack the police?

Come to think of it – that kid, Nik Nevin she is mentoring, he should be taken away from her because she will most certainly damage him psychologically. She is, after all, a psycho.

The East Mediterranean Nat Gas Realities

Let it be known that it will be easier to find water on the Moon than to find a grain of truth in Israel. With this caveat in place, let us discuss what is known about the natural gas situation in the Eastern Mediterranean region.

It was revealed a few years ago that gas was discovered in an area where the economic zones of Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus, Palestine and Israel converge. Even though the proven reserves that Israel may legitimately claim did not exceed the 4.5 trillion cubic feet, Israel's officials jumped the gun and declared it was 18 trillion – a figure that would include the possibility of the “proven” reserves quadrupling … something that happens at times under the most favorable of circumstances.

The truth, however, is that the circumstances in that region are the worst they can be for Cyprus and for Israel. This is the case because of the obvious political reasons– which are that nobody gets along with their neighbors – and because Cyprus and Israel are small territories extended by limited territorial waters and equally limited economic zones. Thus, the probability that gas reserves will quadruple with new gas being discovered in their zones is infinitely small.

Upon learning these realities, Cyprus did the right thing and scaled down its expectation on how much gas it will rely on. As to Israel, it stuck to its guns and kept peddling the old figure of 18 trillion. What happened subsequently was that 30 trillion cubic feet of gas were discovered in Egypt's zone. And that's when the Israelis did the very Jewish thing of inflating their figure to 22 trillion cubic feet. Later, they inflated once more to 25 trillion. Give it a little more time, and they'll be talking about a hundred trillion cubic feet … and more.

Before the Egyptian discovery, the talks were not going well between the international companies and Cyprus; between the companies and Israel. The reason is that the gas is in deep waters, and the infrastructure that will be necessary to get it out will cost between 8 and 15 billion dollars for each location – depending on may factors; a reality that's not unusual for projects of this kind. Thus, for these companies to start working on the infrastructures, Cyprus and Israel will have to accept practically zero return in royalties, yet pay international prices for buying the gas that's coming out their own territorial waters.

Because Egypt's discovery is huge, and because the infrastructure is already there, the gas will come out of its zone in record time and will be profitable to all the participants. Realizing that cooperating with Egypt can be its salvation, Cyprus went to Egypt and asked to have its discovery developed together with that of Egypt. Greece came along too, and will act as a gateway to Europe for the Egypt/Cyprus natural gas.

You would think that the Israelis had the IQ of at least a bird, and realized that Egypt was their salvation too, thus followed in the footsteps of Cyprus and sought Egypt's goodwill. But no; they didn't have this level of an IQ. What they did instead, was to go to a self-declared obscure tribunal with a post office box in Geneva and another one in Paris, where they lodged a complaint against Egypt asking for – what else – compensation.

This story is told in an article that came under the title: “Dispute With Egypt Threatens Israeli Gas Plan” and the subtitle: “Egypt halts plans to import Israeli gas after arbiter rules it owes $1.76 billion to state-owned Israel Electric Corp.” It was written by Roy Jones and Summer Said, and published on December 16, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

The Egyptians are by nature an easy going people and do not have the necessary meanness to deal with situations like these – as they should. And so, we can only hope that the Jews will push them so hard as to awaken the lion in them, forcing them to go all out and teach those parasitic cockroaches a lesson they will never forget.

The way that thing should turn out is this: We assume, for the sake of this discussion that Egypt fulfilled only half the contract and reneged on the other half. Israel says it bought fuel at a higher price, paying an extra $1.76 billion dollars for it, and wants to be compensated. Thus, the counter argument Egypt must use is that it was underpaid by that amount for the gas it sent to Israel. And it is Egypt that needs to be compensated, not the other way around.

And there remains a lingering question: How did Israel get a deal like that?

It happened because there was corruption both in Egypt and in Israel under a previous regime. The new government caught the culprits in Egypt, tried them and threw them in jail; and the same must happen in Israel. Therefore, Egypt must notify Interpol and the ICC to see to it that justice is done, and return to Egypt the amounts that the Jews shortchanged it during all those years.

When the Beastly becomes an actual Beast

It happens at times that young friends get together and start a project they hope will someday grow and become a big thing, but treat it as if they don't believe it will. Looking back years later at the start of a project that made it big, you can tell by the name that was chosen for it, that's what must have happened to it. We can, therefore, speculate that Yahoo and Google were started that way.

But like everything else, there can be an exception to the rule. In fact, when you consider the credentials of the person that founded the publication called the Daily Beast, you wonder how and why this name was chosen for it. In any case, the Daily Beast has over the years proven to be a mainstream publication … including the tendency to act in a beastly manner once in a while. But it is during those moments – when the name and the activity coincide – that you wonder if the behavior was not influenced by the name itself.

This is one of those moments for, the Daily Beast has published an article on December 14, 2015, under the title: “Egypt: No Bomb on Russian Jet, Trust Us!” written by Clive Irving. This is a shallow and beastly kind of article, to say the least. It tells the story of the investigation on the crash of the Russian passenger plane that fell from the sky in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula.

The author lists the known facts about the incident with meticulous precision and absolute honesty. But he also peppers the article with opinions that stand at odds with the facts he listed. It is this disconnect between the facts and the opinions that tells you the logic at play here is so screwed up, it can only be Jewish.

One of the facts he lists is to the effect that: “Preliminary reports are delivered within weeks, more often within a few months.” He goes on: “Without forensic documentation, the Egyptians say they have no evidence the jet was brought down by a bomb,” which makes sense to you because if there is no evidence, there can be no documentation. That's what is said about trying to prove the negative. No, says Clive Irving who forcefully argues that “this investigation is turning out to be one of the worst cases in the entire history of air crash investigations in which competing interests produce different versions of the same event.”

This is what you find puzzling because there has been only one investigation, and this is its preliminary report. It was, and continues to be conducted by the Egyptians, the French, the Irish and the Russians. But the reason why Irving sees competing interests is that “U.S. officials say Russian jet that crashed was likely bombed.” He does not say who the US Officials were or how they reached that “likely” conclusion, but goes on to assert: “neither the Egyptian report nor any of the assertions that it was a bomb meet the most basic evidential standards required of an accident investigation.” And so you scream: What the bleep is he talking about?

He makes an attempt at telling what he's talking about but muddies the logical waters even more. Look how he proceeds: “This is frustrating because every piece of the wreckage was visible and accessible to investigators.” He contrasts this case with a previous one: “an Air India Boeing was brought down by a suitcase bomb over the Atlantic … The main part of the plane lay on the seabed at a depth of 6,700 feet … Evidence from the bodies that were recovered showed that the jet had broken up after an explosion in the cargo hold.”

Which says basically that if a bomb had brought down the Russian plane, the evidence would be there for the Egyptians, the French, the Irish or the Russians to see it and tell the world about it. However, aside from the fact that the Russians made a halfhearted claim (that was quickly dismissed) when they failed to provide the evidence, nothing else proved or even suggested it was a bomb.

What was left, and subject to further investigation, was this: “Nobody disputes the jet was suddenly torn apart in the sky. That could have happened only as a result of a catastrophic structural failure or a bomb placed in the cabin or the cargo hold … One event in the history of the Airbus could have a bearing on a structural failure.” And he tells the story of the plane having experienced a tailstrike 14 years earlier.

Finally, Clive Irving says this: “it is the Egyptians who appear to control how much evidence has – or has not – been gathered and how much of it is being released.” He now puts on his Jewish hat (or skullcap) and says the following about the Egyptian chief investigator: “Somewhat pointlessly, he said that the [multinational] investigation committee had visited the debris field 15 times, and that key pieces of the wreckage were being moved to Cairo for more intensive examination.”

And that's not all because he now accuses the Egyptian of doubling down “on the claim that there was no evidence of terrorism by telling a TV interviewer that neither was there evidence that terrorists had 'infiltrated' the airport at Sharm el-Sheikh.”

From the looks of it, this is when the virtual skullcap on his head might have provided him with the inspiration to add this: “The Egyptians could be suffering the unhappy fate of all regimes like theirs that have little credibility; few people believe them even if they are telling the truth.”

Well, let me tell you something, Clive. Egypt has just been voted almost unanimously by the United Nations representatives of the 7.5 billion inhabitants of the Earth, to sit on the Security Council. That's a lot more than 'a few people.'

By contrast, all that the inhabitants of the Earth wanted to do to the Jews – through time and space – was to gas them and incinerate them. Do you know why? Because they all think and talk like you. Think about it.