History was never his Oyster

Bret Stephens is confused about history. How do I know this, you ask? I'll tell you how I know it. He not only repeated a point that Bernard Lewis made, he built on it … sort of … or maybe not.

I admit I have not read all or even most of what Lewis has written, but the little that I did convinced me not to waste my time reading more Bernard Lewis stuff. You see, my friend, the Jews have two things tattooed on their foreheads. One tattoo reads: Blame your troubles on the entire human race or a segment of it, whichever is convenient at the time. And the other tattoo reads: Accuse everyone else of the sins you see in yourself. And that's what Bernard Lewis did … or something like it.

For many centuries before him, the Jews were blaming Christianity for all their troubles without ever admitting they shared responsibility for what was happening to them. After suffering several pogroms, the fight they were leading against Christianity culminated in the Holocaust that consumed them. They vacated Europe, the home of the Christians, and settled in the Middle East, the home of the Muslim Arabs. Once there, it took them little time to start blaming their troubles on the Arabs and the Muslims.

Bernard Lewis became the leading voice in the choir that sang the new song of blame and victimization. But sensing that people were getting tired of the redundant refrain with which the Jews first blamed Christianity and now Islam, he fell on the message of the second tattoo thus turned reality upside down. He started accusing the Arabs of what he saw in himself, a false description of the Arabs that proved him unfit to be a historian.

What Lewis should have done before erecting a monument of historical quackery, is study real history to identify a pattern he could use as model for what he was about to put together. A good example would have been the study in contrast between China and Japan. Like the Arabs of a century ago, the Chinese of two centuries ago refused to emulate the ways of the rising Western powers because they thought they didn't need to. Seeing things differently, the Japanese emulated the West and caught up with it whereas China stagnated.

To this day, the Arab leaders have not admitted they had been stagnating for a while. They are now going full speed ahead adopting the Western ways, but that's only because their public is pushing them in that direction. It is that the masses have understood their system was deficient, and blamed not outside powers, but their own leaders for the deficiency. Thus neither the Arab leaders nor the public have ever blamed outside powers for their troubles or their lack of progress. This shows Bernard Lewis to be a fake and a master mutilator of history … which is why I do not waste time reading him.

But that's not what Bret Stephens is doing. You can see what he says in the column he wrote under the title: “Who Did This to Us?” and the subtitle: “Donald Trump asks that question. So do Putin, Erdogan and Black Lives Matter.” It was published on August 30, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal. Stephens started the project on shaky grounds and built on it a dubious monument.

Here is his shaky starting point: “Bernard Lewis once made the point...” And here is the dubious model he is trying to amplify: “Mr. Lewis was writing about the Islamic world's destructive habit of blaming its ills on imperialism, Jews and other assorted bogeymen”.

Let me now make a confession. By the time I finished reading the Stephens column, I got the feeling that things were not what they seemed to be, but that the author had scored a master stroke. Here is what I began to think was happening: Seeing Bernard Lewis turn 100 while sitting on a work that history will judge to be mediocre at best, Stephens tried to whitewash that work by diluting its harsh moments. He did it by attributing the “Arab destructive habit” to everyone else on the planet, including Britain and the United States.

It is as if Stephens was saying: Yes Lewis accused the Arabs of suffering from the habit of blaming others for their ills, but so does everyone else. It is just that Lewis did not get around to talking about everyone else. Were he to live another 100 years, he may do just that.

Better yet, Bernard Lewis may choose to do something other than write history. This way he'll spare the likes of Bret Stephens having to whitewash his work for him, looking just as silly.

NY Daily News can never find the real World

A dialectic is a logical argument that takes you along an intellectual journey spanning the distance from observation to conclusion. Most essays unfold along this pattern because the writer would have a good idea what he or she wants to say, thus goes from A to Z thinking and expressing along an almost straight line.

But there comes a time when a controversy proves to be too complex to grasp if we think exclusively along the straight line as we parse it. You'll find such examples in situations where each of two antagonists has a legitimate right that – if exercised – can deny the equally legitimate right of the other. This is when the Hegelian dialectic comes in handy. It is named after the German philosopher, Georg Hegel who approached the parsing of difficult questions the same way that a court case normally unfolds.

Think of two lawyers in a courtroom, each giving an opening statement that tells the judge the half of the story that favors his client. At first, the judge tends to believe that neither lawyer is telling the truth because the truth lies between the two. When the trial gets going in earnest, and the back-and-forth examination of the witnesses gets underway, the judge starts to see the case as a complex puzzle. He realizes that the pieces of the puzzle are intermingled and cannot be separated into two groups to create two stand-alone half-stories as did the lawyers in their opening statements.

Still, the judge can only conclude that neither lawyer has lied when they told half the truth. The problem, however, is that to tell half the truth is to deceive, which – believe it or not – is an accepted practice in the dispensation of justice. It is in such complex cases that “creative solutions” or “creative judgments” are called for. To make them and be correct is what sets apart a superior judge from the ordinary ones.

Without explaining what they were doing, the Jews quietly took those practices from the courtroom to every debating floor; be it the chamber of legislatures or the editorial boardrooms of the media. In this way – deliberately or inadvertently – they managed to transform every situation into a polarized adversarial encounter. The Jews also took those practices to everyday give-and-take situations where every ordinary debate was turned into an aimless haggling match.

It then happened that all kinds of people caught on to what the Jews were doing, and started to play the game against each other and against the Jews themselves. This infuriated the Jews so much; they deployed another secret weapon they were keeping in reserve. Call it the Jewish “Sword of Damocles” or the Jewish “Ton of Bricks,” the weapon was to drop the anti-Semitic accusation on the head of anyone that dared to win an argument against a Jew.

In the interest of self-preservation, the gentiles of the nation shut their mouths and left every debating floor for the Jews to monopolize and do as they wish. This is what the Jews wanted in the first place because – like the saying goes – “there is no autocrat like a Jewish autocrat”.

Jewish autocracy is different from the other autocracies in that it always seeks to have it both ways. It wants a firm grip on its subjects like the rabbis used to have on the ghettos. But the difference between governing a ghetto and governing a modern society that was raised on the principles of liberal democracy, forced the Jewish leaders to create an array of sayings that set the Jews apart from the rest of humanity. That array granted the Jews privileges no one else was allowed to have.

And no one has articulated that ideology more forcefully than the editors of the New York Daily News. Look what they said recently, and compare it with what they said 6 months ago.

On August 29, 2016 – just yesterday – the Daily News published “No room for safe spaces,” an editorial that also came under the subtitle: “A Second City university [Chicago] is tops in encouraging open debate.” They praise the Dean of Students who wrote to the incoming students as follows: “Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not condone the creation for intellectual 'safe spaces' where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.” And so, the editors saw fit to add their own advice which is this: In other words, welcome to the real world, kids.

Now look what they said on February 25, 2016 – six month ago – in an editorial that was titled: “An education in tolerance that CUNY must end anti-Jewish agitation on campus.” You'll find the following passage in that editorial:

“A pro-Palestinian group has created a climate of fear for Jewish students … Students for Justice in Palestine [SJP] has become a vocal presence. SJP has created a hostile atmosphere for some Jewish students. The Zionist Organization of America has called on the CUNY administration to determine whether to revoke SJP's status as a student organization … Most fundamentally, SJP calls for intifada against Israel … The group also advocates for free tuition and cancellation of student debt … [also calls] CUNY's leadership a Zionist administration that propagates settler-colonial ideology through Zionist content of education”.

This is how the editors of the NY Daily News told half the story to have it one way; that of giving Jewish students the “safe places” they sought. The editors then told the other half of the story to have it a different way; that of denying gentile students the safe places they sought.

It seems that the editors of the Daily News can never find out what the real world looks like.

Speaking of Wolves and Foxmen on Campus

One of the first things I had to do in September of 2007 when I launched this website was to write articles defending free speech on campus. I did it on 2 occasions only, 8 days apart – September 18 and 26 – even though I had enough insight to write 2 or 3 more articles each and every day on that subject. My problem is that I was held back by the condition of my eyesight while waiting to be operated on.

What prompts me to look back at my old record at this time, is an August 25, 2016 editorial in the Wall Street Journal that came under the title: “The Chicago School of Free Speech” and the subtitle: “One school tries to educate freshmen, not to bow to their anxieties.” The editors begin their piece with these words: “For a change, we come not to bury a college president but to praise him … the University of Chicago president defends the virtues of free speech on college campus”.

Nine years earlier, my September 18, 2007 article had come under the title: “Who's afraid of the Virgin Wolf,” in which I lamented that once again, an “American institution, St. Thomas in St. Paul Minnesota, has canceled a previous engagement by someone who was to speak on Palestine … none other than Bishop Desmond Tutu [of South Africa] whose fight against apartheid is legendary”.

As to my September 26, 2007 article, it had come under the title: “The Zionist Hate of American Freedom,” in which I quoted the Chairman and Editor of Pluto Books who said in an open letter: “Pluto books and the University of Michigan Press - our US distributor - came under attack by Stand With Us (a Zionist lobby group) who were objecting to the publication of Overcoming Zionism which resulted in the book being withdrawn in the U.S. The vitriolic attack questioned the University's relationship with Pluto generally and denigrated Overcoming Zionism. Pluto Press's importance and presence in the US is under threat”.

Over the six months that followed those instances, I received word to the effect that Abraham Foxman, who used to head the Anti-Defamation League, was trying to do something to muzzle me because the Canadian Jewish Congress was rendered as impotent as a neutered pussycat. Foxman had gone to Israel on a mission I described in an article I wrote under the title: The Day the Foxman dropped the Mask,” published on this website on March 7, 2008. Here is what I said then:

“The man cried out [to the Israelis] for the development of a method by which to censor from the information highway the opinions that do not comply with the ideas designated as good thinking by the commissars of truth as they monitor what the people of the world are saying to each other, and thinking to themselves”.

That was not the end of it because I kept fighting for freedom of speech, of thought and of conscience with the nearly 2,000 articles I wrote and posted on this website. Two notable pieces were (1) “Jack the Ripper of the academic Free Speech,” published on November 23, 2015. And (2) “They're back at the Start of the vicious Cycle,” published on February 27, 2016. The first is about Alan Dershowitz; the second about the New York Daily News – both Jewish and both saying in essence that freedom of speech, of thought and of conscious applies to Jews, only the Jews and no one but the Jews. They advocate the muzzling of everyone else because it is enough, in their opinion, that the Jews are speaking for themselves and for everyone else. This says a great deal about the religious philosophy to which they adhere.

So then, with nine years of history on this subject behind us, what do we make of the latest Wall Street Journal editorial? For one thing, we notice that the editors had very little to say themselves. Instead, they quoted at length other people such as Robert Zimmer, Jay Ellison and John Boyer. Together, they make these points:

“The desire for safe spaces from discomfiting speech or ideas will not override the academic community's interest in rigorous debate. Members of our community are encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn, without fear of censorship. We expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement. Chicago's commitment to academic freedom means that we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial”.

And then, with shameless aplomb, the editors end their presentation like this: “Maybe Chicago's example will inspire spinal infusions at the likes of Rutgers, the University of Missouri, and even the timorous souls at Yale.”

Note that these same editors lacked shame and spine nine years ago. They lacked them when Foxman went to Israel asking for the internet to be censored. And they lack them now; afraid to develop independent arguments against censorship – arguments that would be based on the history of the Jewish trashing of the First Amendment, and the struggle that ensued to repair what they broke.

Are some Babies more equal than others?

Some 70 years ago George Orwell wrote “Animal Farm,” a fable about animals organizing themselves to establish a self-governing society. The pigs took charge of the undertaking and put down rules, one being that “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others”.

As you can see, there is in that rule at least the aspiration to make all animals equal, even if the saying is tweaked with the “but” qualifier to suggest that equality could be given elasticity when necessary to respond to unspecified contingencies that may arise in the future.

That's what the pigs were able to accomplish. So you'd think that human beings, who don't even like being reviled with the epithet “pig,” can do at least as well when putting down rules that establish a sense of equality among their members. If you thought so, you'll be disappointed to learn that the Weekly Standard has joined the Fox News Channel and others like them in stipulating that some babies are more equal than others.

Don't get it wrong, my friend, those publications are not suggesting that babies are different from one another because they have different skin colors or because they are of one gender or another or because they adhere to different persuasions or because they have determined their sexual orientation at that age. No; that's not the case. Rather, all those babies are born equal, say the Weekly Standard and Fox News, till they get killed. That's when they are placed in one of two categories depending on who killed them.

If the American equipped and financed Israeli military of genocide, murders Palestinian babies and their mothers in bed in the middle of the night with the pinpoint accuracy of smart bombs, it is tough luck for those babies because the folks at the Standard and Fox News will rejoice and celebrate the glorious victory of “our ally in the Middle East.” And they will urge their audiences to drink to that.

But if a Syrian child gets killed by someone (it doesn't matter who because Assad will always be blamed,) that child will cause the staff at the two publications – and others like them – to spill enough crocodile tears to fill the Great Lakes should they evaporate. And these people will urge their audiences to spill more tears in case El Nino causes the Pacific Ocean to evaporate. Thus, we now see the need to amend the pigs' rule, and make it read as follows: All human babies are equal till it can be determined who murdered them.

You can read the article that came under the title: “Deal with the Devil” and see for yourself. It was written by Lee Smith and published on August 27, 2016 in the Weekly Standard. Of course, everything that is written, and everything that is verbalized these days, gets steered in the direction of the Iran nuclear deal, and this article is no exception. But the habit of the Jews is to always turn everything into a springboard from where they launch an attack on who and what is bugging them that day.

Lee Smith did just that in his article, but he stepped long enough on a tangent to include this remark:

“Omran is a 5-year-old Syrian boy whose bloodied and shell-shocked visage was splashed across the media. He was pulled out of the rubble left by a Syrian or Russian bombing run. Omran embodied the waste of a war that has taken thousands of children lives like Omran. 'The babies are dying in Aleppo,' wrote Robin Wright … Sure – they're dying. But who is responsible? The Islamic State has killed lots of people. However, Russia has killed more civilians than ISIS. Either Assad or Russia are dropping bombs that kill babies to prop up Iran's ally, the one Obama left alone to seal his deal with Tehran”.

True to form – as per the well established Jewish habit – Lee Smith tried to have it both ways and in so doing, put a big hole in his own theory. Here is the passage that does it:

“The administration … forced Syrian rebel groups that the United States had trained and armed to sign documents promising they wouldn't attack Assad, the despot ordering the torture and murder of their families and friends. In this way, Obama protected the man who bombs 5-year-olds”.

Lee Smith just admitted that America has been training and arming rebel groups he did not mention as possible culprits in the bombing of the 5-year-old. But since the rebels were forbidden from attacking Assad, is it not logical to assume that they took the war to where children were playing, thus may well have been responsible for what happened to that boy?

The endless Jewish War against Humanity

Wesley Pruden, who used to be the editor in chief of The Washington Times, wrote an article under the title: “The endless war against the Jews” and had it published on August 25, 2016 in The Washington Times.

It looks like Pruden has not left the decade of the 70s when the anti-hero was the craze of the day. Movies were made and songs were sung in celebration of the “bad” guy because society was perceived to be even worse. Thus, no matter how bad the bad guy was portrayed, he was thought to level the playing field for the downtrodden, and this gave him a Robin Hood quality that redeemed him in the end.

Likewise, there are those who insist that the uneasy relationship between humanity and the Jews – lasting 35 centuries already – is entirely the fault of the human race because the Jews have conducted themselves impressively whereas everyone else have conducted themselves despicably. This means – when all is said and done – that the Jews will not have to change their behavior, whereas everyone else will have to alter their way of life to harmonize with the ways of the Jews who must be accommodated one hundred percent.

Does this make sense? Well, that's what Wesley Pruden wants us to believe. In fact, he wrote an 800-word essay to explain his point. He begins the explanation by reminding us of what Orwell once observed: “The man who controls the language controls the conversation.” To Pruden, it comes down to the definition of the word “genocide.” Hitler committed genocide, he says, because he murdered a third of the Jewish population. By contrast, the Jews in occupied Palestine do not commit genocide, he adds, because the Palestinian population under their control went from one million to four million in 50 years.

There are two questions to consider here. There is the question as to how accurate the labeling of someone or something usually is. And there is the question as to what might be the intent behind the labeling of someone or something.

According to Pruden's numbers – which I will not dispute or try to verify – there remained 12 million Jews on the planet at the end of World War Two. According to the numbers floated by the various Jewish organizations, there are today 20 million self-identified Jews in the world, and perhaps another 25 or 30 million who converted to another religion. That’s a total of 45 or 50 million Jews in the official and non-official categories. So the question to ask is this: Does going from 12 million to 50 million represent a population explosion?

Because conversion is something you can do with religion but not with ethnic lineage, the 4 million Palestinians cited by Pruden is an absolute number to which nothing can be added. Now, if quadrupling the Palestinian population is not genocide but a population explosion – like says Wesley Pruden – why is it that Hitler's act was labeled genocide when the Jewish population has also quadrupled from 12 million to 50 million?

Yes, this is too simplistic a way to calculate such matters, but the point I’m making is that playing the numbers game in a situation like this is a silly undertaking. There has been large scale and small scale genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, the Levant, Palestine and many other places, all of which have one thing in common. The intent behind them was to suppress one population so as to make room for the “natural growth” of another population. And the idea behind building settlements in non-Jewish Palestine is to make room for the natural growth of the Jewish population, says Netanyahu. This is genocide whatever the numbers, whichever way you do the counting.

We now address the purpose behind the labeling of someone or something. There is truth in Orwell's saying about controlling the word to control the conversation, but there is more to it than that. When an act is labeled genocide, moral and legal ramifications are evoked. In fact, Hitler's genocidal behavior led to the destruction of Germany, to his own death, and to the death of millions who chose to stand with him.

So we ask, what might be the intent of those who call “genocide” Israel's activities in occupied Palestine? According to Pruden, they are Protestant Churches, prominent academics and many “self-hating” Jews. But are they asking for the destruction of Israel, for the death of Netanyahu, or the death of the millions who choose to stand with him? No. All they want is to tell the leadership in Israel that 50 years of occupation has come to symbolize the 35 centuries of antagonistic relation the Jews have had with humanity.

Humanity did not like it then, and does not like it now. Those he calls self-hating Jews are tired of the self-appointed leaders who keep severing them from the rest of humanity.

Humanity is where the rank-and-file Jews feel they belong, and that's where they want to be. They wish to end the perpetual Jewish war against humanity because they know that humanity wants them in its fold, and will welcome them as it has done many times throughout the ages.

All of that will happen when the Jewish leaders will stop calling antisemitic everyone that gives them advice, when Israel will get out of Palestine, and when the leaders will realize that humanity will not adapt to their ways, therefore the Jews will have to make the effort to adapt to the ways of humanity.

Top Dollars for worthless Snake Oil

There is an Egyptian saying I would translate like this: “The foolish are exploiting the madmen.” Nowhere does it apply more aptly than in America where they pay top dollars to those who tell them – actually flatter them – with this: Let me tell you how you can use your superior know-how to exploit those who are lesser than you.

This is how defectors from the old Soviet Bloc used to live the good life in America without having to work. It is how every Jew and his cousin that can pronounce the words “security” and “expert” live high on the hog. It is how some Arabs – who followed in the footsteps of the now departed Iraqi con artist named Chalibi – used to live during America's misadventure in their part of the world.

Currently, there is a slew of Arabs – supposedly of the scholarly kind writing for publications often associated with a think tank – telling the Americans in power, how they can extend their influence in the Arab world. One of those is Samuel Ramani who wrote an article under the title: “America Can Exploit Saudi-Egyptian Tensions,” and had it published on August 24, 2016 in the National Interest.

The genius of Ramani is not that he has new insights to contribute to the debate; he is only using false clichés that were articulated by others over the years. Rather, he has managed to convince the Americans that he worked out a surefire way for them to outperform the Arabs. In so doing, he guaranteed himself a more attentive ear, thus had a more efficient way to exploit the American weakness of character.

Do you remember how everybody used to say America should use the leverage it has over Egypt with regard to the $1.3 billion military deal between the two countries? Look what Ramani is saying now:

“The United States has struggled to convert its $1.3 billion military provisions to Egypt into leverage over Cairo's policies and conduct. Instead of transitioning to democracy, Egypt has [opted] for political repression. As Egypt has become economically dependent on the GCC and strengthened its relationship with Russia, many have called for a downgrade in the U.S.-Egypt partnership … [However] despite underlying tensions between Washington and Cairo the United States should not dial down its alliance with Egypt. Sisi is on the cusp of realigning Egypt's foreign policy in a way that could greatly benefit U.S. interests”.

From this point on, Ramani sets out to explain his theory. Let me tell you right away that his presentation is a joke. You will be convinced of that when you get to this passage: “Modernizing one of Egypt's most significant landmarks has rallied Egyptian nationalists around Sisi, but large-scale corruption has caused Egyptian government revenues from the Suez Canal to decline over the past year.” What? From where did he get that?

The reality is that the modernization of the Canal has been one of the most efficient (and free of corruption) undertakings in recent Egyptian history in that the work was concluded in one year instead of three or even five as expected. Yes, the revenues have declined slightly over the past year but that has nothing to do with corruption, and everything to do with a slowing world trade.

But how did Ramani come up with an idiotic idea like that? It must be that he read one article which said there was corruption in Egypt. He then read another article which said that the Suez Canal revenues declined last year. And so, he “connected the dots” and came up with this monstrosity: large-scale corruption has caused revenues from the Canal to decline.

Now that you know how much intellectual fraud there is in Samuel Ramani's article, you should put a box of granulated salt in front of you as you read the rest of the article. You'll have to take a grain each time that you encounter what looks like a new insight because it will turn out to be a discarded old cliché. Let me now give you a couple of examples on what Ramani would have known had he followed events in Egypt instead of reading about them in America.

He says this: “GCC business elites have recently expressed frustration with Sisi's unwillingness to implement necessary economic reforms.” To explain what that is, he goes on to talk about the budget deficit. This is total rubbish. The truth is that the GCC business elites could not care less about the budget deficit in Egypt. What they wanted were two things. (1) They wanted a repeal of the law that forbids foreigners from owning land in Egypt. They wanted to build and own both the land and the buildings, not just own the buildings they construct over lands they were to lease. (2) The GCC business elites wanted total ownership of the mines with Egypt being satisfied only with levying taxes on the operation … and they better be rates of taxation low enough to compete against mines elsewhere in the developing world.

Ramani also says this: “Sisi has antagonized his GCC patrons by spending much of their financial assistance on inefficient government programs and status-building projects.” This is worse than rubbish. The fact is that with two revolutions in three years, a great deal of foreign reserves left the country. The result was that Egypt fell behind paying for the share of the oil and natural gas it bought from its foreign partners under the 'right of first refusal' provision in the contracts.

The foreign partners took advantage of the situation and tried to impose contracts on Egypt that would have given them total ownership of the resources they discover in the future. This kind of deal would have served as a model for the contracts that the oil companies were planning to impose on everyone else in the region. Thus, it was in the interest of the neighboring countries to stand with Egypt and give it the oil and gas it needed to keep the lights on while negotiating with the oil companies. They had Egypt’s back to cover their own backs.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait did just that by shipping oil and natural gas to Egypt. They also gave a little extra cash in the form of grants, loans and bank deposits to help stabilize the currency. This is how Egypt got over the difficulty with a devaluation of only 30 percent of its currency as compared to some other economies in Africa where the devaluation reached 60 percent … and they didn't even have a revolution.

The rest of Samuel Ramani's article is more of the same kind of rubbish, paragraph after paragraph.

Pantheon of the miserable Tricksters

There was a time, a number of years ago, when the Jewish engineered blacklisting of me was so effective, and my vision (before the cataract operations) was so “tired,” I wrote sporadically and wrote very little. This gave me time to play the stock market; a hobby I have delved into on-and-off for half a century.

Playing the market and tracking the related news, I became acquainted with the names of a number of people in the investment business – one of them being the legendary George Soros. To be honest, I did not like the way he played the game, and said it on a number of occasions. When he wrote a book, which came under the title: “The Age of Fallibility,” I read it, and did not think much of it. In fact I found it to be so unmemorable, I don't remember a word of it ten years later … except for the title.

Now comes this guy, Clifford D. May, and writes an article under the title: “The Soros smear effect” and the subtitle: “Rather than debate his opponents, the billionaire arbiter defames all of them,” published on August 23, 2016 in The Washington Times. Believing that I'll find information in this work to justify my negative view of Soros, I discovered instead that he is a better human being when he wears the philanthropist's hat than he is when he wears the investor's hat.

Clifford May attacks George Soros bitterly because he says he just discovered that Open Society Foundations (OSF), which is financed by Soros, was behind the effort to expose his [May's] Islamophobic hatred, racism and bigotry, as well as those of other individuals and groups. Among the latter were such tricksters as Daniel Pipes and Liz Cheney who were focused on exposing what May calls the “toxic ideologies” of the Muslim world.

Knowing how trashy was the work of Clifford May, Daniel Pipes, Liz Cheney and all those of their ilk, I was curious to see how much worse the work of OSF had to be for May to attack it the way that he did. It turns out that the work was not trashy at all but that May was harboring hatred for the fact that:

“Those who run OSF for Mr. Soros were distressed that groups on the left lacked 'high quality opposition research' to combat 'anti-Muslim xenophobia.' So OSF decided to provide dollars to launch an 'Examining Anti-Muslim Bigotry Project.' Its mission would be to 'track' the activities of yours truly [Clifford May], Daniel Pipes, Liz Cheney and others.”

What is so bad about that, I exclaimed! And why would OSF want to do something like this? May tells why the organization was interested in such a project; and makes it clear he doesn't like it one bit. Here is how he expresses his disappointment:

“To engage journalists, researchers, academics and leaders in the anti-hate movement who are researching and writing on Islamophobia and to develop a clearer understanding of how a well financed system is able to introduce false narratives and flawed research into the media cycle to manipulate public opinion and thwart counterterrorism policies”.

For a weird reason that no one who is a normal person can accept or explain, Clifford May, Daniel Pipes and Liz Cheney thought it was a bad idea for the OSF to be interested in such matters as Islamophobia, in the way that false narratives are introduced into the media cycle, and in the way that public opinion is manipulated. For this reason, Clifford May who felt deeply hurt, went looking for consolation anywhere he could find it.

He found it on a Fox News television show where, he says, he had the opportunity to speak of the magnificent ideas he had developed. They consisted of ripping the Soros broader agenda, which included (1) pushing Europe and America to open their borders to suffering refugees, (2) promoting a non-nuclear Iran, and (3) investing in groups that sought liberation for a Palestinian people suffering atrociously under the rule of an American financed and equipped Israeli army of bloodthirsty land robbers.

Alas – from the looks of it – it appears that by now, the author had discovered he did not have an argument solid enough to convince the readers of anything. So he did what the weaklings, who wish to appear more important than they are, always do. He called on Soros to debate him in a public forum.

This is unlikely to happen because George Soros would rather give to and take from the market players of the world than give-and-take with the miserable tricksters of America.

Antisemitism has faded, switch to Demagoguery

What's a self-styled Jewish leader to do when the tip of his sword has been blunted, and he can no longer intimidate people with the accusation that they are antisemitic? The answer is that he relies on the other trusted weapon in his arsenal: demagoguery.

Different people define demagoguery differently, but the most enduring definition is the one which says: to seek controlling the masses by scaring them of events about to unfold against which only he can protect them. The weapon has worked well for the Jewish leaders over the centuries, being the method by which they maintained a firm grip on the multitudes that chose to stay protected inside the walls of the ghetto rather than venture outside it and be harmed by what may lurk out there.

But there is a gap between scaring a population of Jews that's kept inside a walled ghetto, and scaring a diversified population that sees no walls around it. In fact, this is the gap that Bret Stephens – the self-styled Judeo-American leader – is trying to bridge in the column he wrote under the title: “The New Dictators' Club,” and the subtitle: “An echo of the 1930s in the budding alliance of Russia, Iran, Turkey and China.” It was published on August 23, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.

At first, the author attempts to bridge the gap using a historical analogy. Here is how he starts his presentation: “In the fall of 1940 the governments of Japan, Italy and Germany signed the Tripartite Pact, pledging mutual support … Within five years, 70 million people would be killed...” To complete the analogy, he explained that: “in July 2015 Iran's Qasem Soleimani paid a visit to Moscow … Iran and Russia are not natural allies … But what tipped the scale in favor of a joint operation was a shared desire to humiliate the U.S.”

Humiliating the U.S. is supposed to be the scary part. Unlike the vague stories that were circulated in the ghettos of yesteryear, the modern danger, as seen by Bret Stephens, is the well defined coming together of America's foremost enemies, Iran and Russia. But should this be so scary as to believe that within a specified period of time (say, five years,) a specified number of people (say, 70 million) may be killed?

But wait a minute. What's going on here? The historical reality is that 70 million people died as a result of World War Two which started a year before the Tripartite Pact was signed, and ended 6 years later. Yet, Bret Stephens started the article by asserting that there was a cause and effect relationship between the Pact and that number of dead. Did he deliberately set out to deceive the readers?

It can only be said that he was conscious of what he was doing because he ended the article in a way that takes some of the sting out of his deception. Here is how he did that: “Readers searching for historical analogies with the present would be wrong to reach for the Tripartite Pact.” He said this much despite the fact that he earlier made this analogy: “in July 2015 Iran's Qasem Soleimani paid a visit to Moscow … what tipped the scale in favor of a joint operation was a shared desire to humiliate the U.S.” Whatever!

It is also odd that someone should start with an idea and construct around it a presentation that ends with the repudiation of the idea. We must, therefore ask: What is there between the start of the article and its ending that is so important, it compelled Bret Stephens to express himself using this style of writing? Two passages in the article may explain what has motivated him. Here they are in condensed form:

Passage # 1: “All this is happening as the nuclear deal was supposed to be nudging Iran in a more pro-American direction. It's also happening as Moscow and Ankara are moving toward a possible alliance. Russian media outlets are touting the possibility that Russian jets might use the air base at Incirlik to bomb targets in Syria. That all but presumes U.S. withdrawal.” It is the fear of no longer being considered the Alpha Dog.

Passage # 2: “The drills in the South China Sea are a reminder that the Kremlin's goal is to diminish the U.S. It's a goal Beijing appears to share. And why not? President Obama and his advisers continue to insist that the world has never been a better, safer, happier place than under their benign stewardship, meaning they no longer even register the continuous embarrassments of their foreign policy”.

No, says Bret Stephens, the world is not a safe place. He wants us to get scared and prepare to fight against a world that is turning against us. And this, my friend, is what defines Jewish style demagoguery.

Engaging a Dog Catcher to talk Economics

The evidence is in that the Jewish Hate And Incitement Machine (JHAIM) is running out of money or tricks or both by which to brainwash its victims. That is clearly apparent at this time because the machine is failing to attract even a semi-respectable character to do the hating and the incitement for it.

To wit, the machine has convinced Frederick Deknatel – who is no more knowledgeable in economic matters than a dog catcher – to attach his name to an article that came under the title: “IMF Bailout Offers Little Relief to Egypt Given el-Sissi's Track Record,” published on August 19, 2016 in World Politics Review.

The JHAIM always had two main objectives. First, to sabotage the economies of the countries whose blood the Jews cannot get to siphon off. Second, to try and bring about regime change in the countries where the leaders are no brain dead zombies of the kind that populates the District of Columbia.

As can be seen in the title of Deknatel's article, the leaders of the JHAIM are predicting that no relief will come to Egypt even after the IMF bailout, a speculation they hope will scare away potential investors in the Egyptian economy. And they assert that President Sissi is the problem, which is how they start every new project for regime change, thus incite the Americans to drop everything they do, and work to realize the Jewish fantasy.

You go through the article in search of one idea or insight that may be identified as an original contribution by the author, and find none. Instead, you discover that the article consists of using the sayings of other writers, and placing them in a narrative that supports the JHAIM objectives. Worse, despite the promise that the discussion is about the IMF bailout failing to offer relief to Egypt, you find that the writer never touches on that topic directly.

Instead, you find him say that Sissi has “pursued grandiose development projects like the expansion of the Suez Canal and a new administrative capital … designed to appeal to national pride.” He adds that on top of that, Egypt has “ongoing political turmoil that keeps the tourism industry down.” So you wonder: Is that all he regards as Sissi's track record that will prevent Egypt from allocating the IMF bailout money in a beneficial way?

To begin with, the political turmoil started long before Sissi came to power. In fact, he came as a result of the turmoil. As to the expansion of the Canal; it was made possible by a bond issue that the public bought and paid for. As to the new capital city, it will be financed with local and foreign private capital. The significance of all this is that not a single penny of the government budget has gone into these projects or will go into them.

Why is it important to mention all that? It is important because the IMF loan is designed to offset the government fiscal deficit. Now, if Frederick Deknatel were at least one notch more knowledgeable than a dog catcher in matters relating to the economy, he would have talked about the deficit, its causes and the possible solutions to it. But he did nothing of the sort.

Even when he had the opportunity to add something of his own to the discussion, he failed to see the significance of what someone he quoted had said. Here is that part: “The IMF's mission chief in Egypt said that the economic reform measures included a VAT and more cuts to energy subsidies … According to the Times, he said that Egyptian officials have specified that the added revenue would be used to increase food subsidies and social programs for the poor”.

Would that solve the deficit problem or would it compound the problem? There is certainly a legitimate debate that can be had here. Instead of seizing the opportunity and doing something that is his own, Deknatel the dog catcher, did this: “Sissi is surely fearful of stoking bread riots like the ones in 1977, when then-President Anwar Sadat, as part of his own loan deal with the IMF and World Bank, cut subsidies on basic foodstuffs”.

What's that about? It is the kind of talk that advances the agenda of the JHAIM leaders but does nothing to raise the level of debate in America, or add to the pool of knowledge that the citizens need to live their daily lives, especially when dealing with a world that's getting more knowledgeable and more sophisticated.

All in all, America is losing something permanently so that the Jews may gain something temporarily. The reality is that the JHAIM is dismantling the culture that led America to the moon and the planets, replacing it with the Judeo-Yiddish culture that led the Jews to pogroms and the Holocaust. What a staggering reduction!

The swollen Sewer of verbal Diarrhea

Steady yourselves my friends for, we were hit with another 1,100-plus words of verbal diarrhea flowing through the sewage that passes for American journalistic punditry these days … all of it done in pontification over the swap that was concluded months ago between the United States and Iran.

This time David French put-in 900 words of useless talk under the title: “Those Pallets of Cash Sent to Iran Were 'leverage' After All,” and had the article published on August 19, 2016 in National Review Online. And then, on August 20, 2016, the editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune put-in their 200-plus words of treason under the title: “The Iran ransom: Obama's web”.

David French made a great deal about the White House spokesman using the word “leverage,” to explain what happened on the ground the day that the swap between the American prisoners and the Iranian money was done. He made several subtle attempts to make it sound like the words “leverage” and “ransom” were synonymous, but never came out and said so honestly. He did not even try to define either word, or show where an overlap may exist between them.

Instead of doing that, David French pulled an 'Alice in Wonderland' moment by turning reality upside down as can be seen in this passage: “Even now, the State department's admission that it used the cash as 'leverage' to guarantee the prisoner exchange, Vox's Zach Beauchamp is confidently declaring that that revelation 'doesn't amount to evidence of a ransom' ... I think Beauchamp needs to meditate on the meaning of the word 'evidence.'” No. Beauchamp need not meditate on anything; it is David French that ought to meditate on the meaning of the two words “leverage” and “ransom” because they do not mean the same thing.

French did something else that shows how desperate he and those like him have become to denigrate their President and by extension their country. He used the sayings of his enemies at home and abroad (the New York Times and the Ayatollahs) to contradict the sayings of the White House. As to the Times, he quotes the publication having quoted the State Department as saying there was leverage and simultaneity in the exchange but not ransom payment. As to the Ayatollahs, there is a long story to be told, so here it is:

Iran has its own hardliners who did not want their country to make any deal with America relating to their nuclear program. They opposed the negotiations all along, and opposed everything that was connected to the nuclear deal even remotely. And so, when the swap of American prisoners with Iranian money was made, they jumped on it, and accused their government of selling the honor of the nation for a measly 400 million dollars.

This is when the Ayatollahs intervened to explain to the Iranian public that the exchange had nothing to do with the nuclear deal, and everything to do with a swap between American prisoners and Iranian money. Look now how David French spun those events:

“Administration officials encouraged the public to believe that the Ayatollahs were lying to look tough in the eyes of a gullible citizenry. Here's the New York Times: Mr. Kirby conceded that while the deals were negotiated separately, the timing of the final transactions were linked … There's a word for those who bought the administration's initial line: “suckers.” There's a different phrase for the journalists who sold the story: 'partisan hacks'”.

What David French has avoided mentioning is that there is a word for those who denigrate their country and its leaders to please the leaders of a foreign entity situated thousands of miles away: “traitors.” Speaking of treason, here is the Pittsburgh Tribune; the epitome of the worst form of treason you'll ever encounter anywhere, anytime.

The following is what the editors of the Tribune are saying: “The president and his administration denied that the United States' payment of $400 million to Iran was a ransom for the release of hostages on the very same day. The president lied. And because of his tangled web of deception, he has placed a price tag on the head of every American abroad”. Was this the manifestation of a feeble mind or a malicious one?

The fact is that the world is awash with copycats who love to see a real or fictitious example they can follow. An American editorial that tells them the President of the United States is lying while the Ayatollahs are telling the truth, is one they will wholeheartedly heed, honor and follow.

If and when kidnappers and terrorists will take that information to heart and act on it, the editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune will not be considered feeble minds; they’ll be accused of malice and treated accordingly.

Haggling over Ambiguities kills Americans

What is the purpose – in a so-called democracy – of making laws and/or pronouncements under the guise of clarifying principles said to make freedom ring? Well, it can be argued with some certainty that such laws and pronouncements will instead lead to killing freedom with the unintended consequence of killing people too.

This reality comes out loudly and clearly when you go over the childish and tortured editorial of the Wall Street Journal which came under the title: “Obama's R-Word for Iran” and the subtitle: “A spokesman calls it 'leverage' for prisoners, aka ransom for hostages.” It was published on August 18, 2016 in the Journal.

Instead of starting the piece by defining the word 'ransom' and proceeding to show that it is (or is not) what the White House did when dealing with Iran, the editors started like this: “The Obama Administration's handling of the Iran ransom-for-hostages story brings to mind the Chico Marx line in the movie “Duck Soup”: “Who are you going to believe – me or your own eyes?”

In the absence of a mature effort to clarify what they mean by their use of the word 'ransom,' you can struggle all you want with the editors' piece of work and you'll come no closer to understanding what they try to convey with the use of the term “ransom-for-hostages,” or indeed, what purpose is served by the editorial other than it is an exercise in futility – a term, by the way, which defines Jewish haggling perfectly.

Jewish haggling is an end in itself, therefore has no purpose except to exist for its own sake. This, however, does not preclude the unintended consequences which may flow from haggling being done in the first place. And this leads to the question: Can the Journal editorial – as silly and pointless as it is – be responsible for American citizens being killed in the future? To find the answer, we look to the question that the editors have asked, and what response was given. Here it is:

“One may reasonably ask: Why did the Obama Administration persist with such an obviously preposterous cover story? Mr. Obama offered one honest answer amid the original denial. We didn't pay a ransom, the President said, “precisely because if we did we'd start encouraging Americans to be targeted”.

The way this exchange has unfolded is that President Obama first asserted that no American has ever been targeted. He went on to explain: if we say ransom-for-hostages, what we fear the most will come to pass, which is why we don't say it. So the editors reacted by shouting to potential hostage takers: But he did, he did, he did.

So now, those who never intended to target Americans have been assured by the editors of the Wall Street Journal that despite the denials, they'll be paid well if they target Americans. And of course, if no payment is made, the hostages may be killed. This is the unintended consequence of juvenile editors that never let an opportunity pass without milking it of every drop of sensational value they can draw from it.

How did America handle such situations in the past? And how did America get to where it is today?

Paying ransom is defined as exchanging something that is yours – such as money – for something or someone that is also yours. Thus, the transaction that took place between America and Iran cannot be called ransom because it only swapped Iranian money that was held in America for American prisoners that were held in Iran.

What happened instead is akin to what America used to do during the Cold War when prisoners were exchanged by their simultaneous release on a bridge that connected the Eastern and Western blocs of nations. There was no fuss and no muss then because no Jewish haggling was allowed to interfere with the business of the nation.

What happened subsequently is that the Jews infiltrated America to such depth; they pushed out fruitful debates and replaced them with useless Jewish haggling. This had the effect of creating a sea of ambiguities that froze the debaters in place and pushed democracy out, replacing it with Jewish authoritarian rule.

And this happened because haggling has paralyzed the nation and opened the door for the Jews to dictate their daily demands, and have them fulfilled promptly while the business of America remains dead in the water like a ship of state that's frozen in a sea of defunct ideas.

Frozen and going nowhere is what the Congress of the United States as well as the legislatures of the various States in the Union, have become under Jewish authoritarian rule.

Nobody raise their voice because they all want to keep their job, and they wish to stay off the blacklist.

Jewish Ambiguity is Putin's Ace Card

Barack Obama seems to have learned an important lesson from what happened to George W. Bush. It is that the Jews will plan something for you, will push you to do it, and when it fails, will blame you for the failure saying that their planning was perfect but your execution of it was horrible. The Jews did this to W. Bush regarding the Iraq calamity, and despite the horrible result, went on to give advice to everyone as if they had brilliantly served their president and the country.

In the wake of this reality, Obama backed off from a number of Jewish counsels, the most significant being the bombing of Syria, an act that would have forced Assad to launch a full scale chemical attack on Israel, with Hezbollah and Hamas attacking with tens of thousands of rockets from the North and from the South. The resulting horror would have drawn America into the fight with consequences we cannot begin to fathom.

With this in the background, history will discuss the Judeo-American War on Iraq by showing the video clip of a Thomas Friedman standing on foreign soil and making the moronic suggestion that George W. Bush will suffer the fate of his father if he did not invade Iraq. That same history will also speak of a Charles Krauthammer who was mortified by Obama's rejection of the Jewish strategy of ambiguity, and tried to do something about it.

It must be said that the Jews scored a few victories at the start of their Middle Eastern adventure decades ago when they started playing the game of ambiguity. There is the well known silly joke about Israel having a full blown nuclear arsenal and not a single bomb to test. But that silliness pales compared to the depraved game that the Jews played; a game that yielded a great deal of propaganda for Israel while hitting America with limitless loss of respect.

You can see how that game was played when you study Krauthammer's article: “The price of powerlessness” in which the author laments what could have been achieved but never was because Obama rejected the Jewish game instead of playing it. Krauthammer's article was published on August 18, 2016 in the Washington Post.

Speaking of Putin, the writer says this: “Dealt a very weak hand, he has restored Russia to great-power status. Reduced to irrelevance in the 1990s, it is now a force to be reckoned with.” So you want to know how this situation came about, and Krauthammer says it was all Obama's fault … which is the natural thing for a member of the opposition to say in this election year.

There is, however, more to it than meets the eye because the Jews were immersed in it up to their eyeballs. This was the time when they played the depraved game of ambiguity more viciously than ever. And nowhere did the game become more evident than when the Jews played it against Egypt.

What they did was play the notorious double game. On the one hand, they urged the American government – White House, State Department and the Congress – to do all they can to cajole Egypt into normalizing relations with Israel. On the other hand, they whispered in the ears of the media, words to the effect that they must unleash the filthiest kind of propaganda against Egypt. And they played a similar game against a number of other Arab and Muslim countries.

Whereas the Americans failed to see anything wrong with that as they played along, the Arabs and the Muslims – who have known the Jews since time immemorial, and know their ideology inside out – were not fooled. The one thing that the Arabs missed however was the reality that the Americans didn't know what was going on. In fact, the Arabs believed that the Americans were not blindly following Jewish orders but had their eyes open and knew exactly what the Jews were asking them to do.

This misunderstanding had repercussions, of course, and that's what Krauthammer is describing in his article. He is, however, attributing the negative consequences not to the Jewish game of depraved ambiguity but to Obama's policies. Here is what he says in that regard: “The reordering of the Middle East is proceeding apace. Where for 40 years the U.S.-Egypt alliance anchored the region, a Russia-Iran condominium is now dictating events.” This did not happen by itself; there was a reason for it that the writer is hiding.

What happened was that every time the Egyptians tried to communicate with the Americans on matters concerning the two countries, an “American” Jew was put in charge, and he steered the discussion in the direction of Israeli interests. When the Egyptians had it up to here with this kind of idiocy, they concluded that the Jews had turned America into an empty shell of sheer uselessness. And so they turned their attention to more serious pursuits. The same thing happened to other countries in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and even Western Europe. This is the Jewish ambiguity that killed America's influence in the world. It is the ace card that brought glory to Putin, and brought further disrespect for America.

Whereas history will say that Thomas Friedman conned George W. Bush, and got him to overthrow Saddam Hussein, it will say that Krauthammer tried to con the would-be successor of Obama – even before the election – into doing more of what broke America's back in the first place.

The four-sided Mouth of modern Evil

A new controversy has exploded in America with the news that the swap between American prisoners held in Iran and Iranian money held in America, did not happen exactly simultaneously.

The expectation now is that the revelation will be haggled over throughout the nation over several days. And if the Congress decides to hold hearings on the matter – as called for by some people – the controversy will persist for several more months if not years.

That's not how America used to operate before the Jews infiltrated it so deeply, they replaced its tradition of free speech with the Jewish haggle, and replaced its democratic system of governance with a paralyzing slug-fest consisting of everyone watching, accusing and investigating everyone else. So the question to ask: What exactly have the Jews done to pull America to such depth?

To get an idea, we can put things in simple enough human terms for everyone to understand. Creating an allegory would be ideal; so here is one:

Some parents are harsh and some are not because some spare the rod and some don't. Whether you are intelligent or you're not, you're bound to be on one side of this divide or the other. That's because parenting is more a human instinct than a product of classroom study.

You look around and see two sets of parents, one that's simple yet disciplined and treating the children harshly at times; another set that's jovial and permissive on the surface but contradictory and paradoxical at times. You talk to the neighbors and receive confusing information that leaves you neither here nor there, so you rely on your instinct to decide which set of parents is the better one.

At first you side with the jovial and permissive family, but then start being bothered by its contradictions and paradoxes, so you decide to do something to find out what's going on. Knowing that the family adopts children who are not its own, you arrange to have a gifted child adopted by it to see what's inside the household and report to you. To your horror, you learn that the household is an indoor camp where the children exist solely for the sexual gratification of the adults.

You deem this household to be the place where pure evil resides. And you begin to understand why the evil was so difficult to detect. It's an evil that is confusing because it speaks with a mouth that's endowed with four sides from which to articulate several contradictory ideas at the same time.

The point of this story is that some nations operate on the basis of 'what you see is what you get.' Other nations operate in one fashion yet appear to operate in another. The first do not care what you call their system of governance. The second insist on being called liberal-democratic. But like the evil household, they put out faint signals of contradictions and paradoxes that should warn everything is not kosher in that place. However, most of us ignore such signals because we do not understand them, we fear confronting evil, or we too benefit from the situation.

To see how that works, we can look at four articles that appeared at the same time around August 16, 2016. They represent the four-sided mouth of Judaism; the most destructive evil ever inflicted on humanity.

One article came under the title: “Tracking freedom's enemies” and the subtitle: “A new State Department report confirms most people are denied basic human rights.” It was written by Clifford D. May and published in The Washington Times. A second article came under the title: “The Lutheran Church Attacks Israel Again,” written by Elliott Abrams and published on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations. A third came under the title: “Why do people Still Donate to Universities?” It was written by Dennis Prager and published in National Review Online. A fourth came under the title: “Putin is gobbling up whatever he can – while Obama does nothing,” written by Benny Avni and published in the New York Post.

These are four Jews from among the dozens who keep telling America that despite the fact they have turned everything they touched into trash for nearly 4000 years, they still own the design for the creation of a perfect world. The way that Clifford May chose to say so, is to trash everyone except Israel and those who pretend to tolerate it. He ends the article with this question: “Are those in the West willing to do more than we did? If I were to ask that, what would you answer?

My answer is this: clip Israel's wings. This will send a strong signal to the Jews the world over that they must never again counsel someone how to do anything … especially the mentally retarded such as those populating the American Congress.

As to Elliott Abrams, he starts the article by attacking the Lutheran Church the way that Jews always attack a church. Here is how: “ELCA is a church in decline...” But why is he mad at that Church? Because it “built on previous anti-Israel resolutions to demand an end to aid to Israel.” Until when? Until “Israel complies with internationally recognized human rights standards as specified in existing U.S. laws, and end its occupation of Palestine”.

What's wrong with that in the eyes of Abrams? Well, it's the thing which the Jews call singling out Israel. Here is how Abrams formulated that complaint: “And of course, these requirements apply to one single country: Israel.” Apparently this guy does not realize that only Israel is occupying Palestine. He is so stupid, he missed his calling. He should be in the Congress; a natural habitat tailor-made for him.

As to Dennis Prager, he wants people to stop donating to the universities of America because “nearly every college and university has become hate-filled and, of course, anti-Israel.” Well, there is a handful of exceptions; among them Prager University.

As to Benny Avni, he uses 700 of the 770-words article to whine about “Putin gobbling up whatever he can.” And he uses the last 70 words to do some whining of his own – like this: “Putin's known as a great poker player who holds the weakest hand. But we facilitate his activist style by constantly whining about our own hand, and by waiting to be dealt a pair of aces. No wonder Putin now sits in front of a much larger stack of chips than when he began this expansion by invading Georgia with barely a peep from Bush-era America”.

If only someone could find a way to reduce a four-sided mouth into a two-sided mouth, we could turn these guys into ordinary, run-of-the-mill hypocrites, and deal with them like the two-bit scoundrels we encounter everyday. And maybe, the US Congress – deprived of their influence – will start thinking like an assembly of human beings.

She wants Justice, they want Dominion

Her name is Susan Shapiro, and she wrote an article about incidents that happened to Israelis at the Olympics. She submitted the article to the New York Daily News that's owned by Mortimer Zuckerman, and the publication chose to run it under the title: “Anti-Semitism taints the games” even though nowhere does the word anti-Semitism appear in her article. The piece was published on August 17, 2016 in the Daily News.

His name is Bret Stephens, and he wrote a column about the same Olympic incidents. His paper, the Wall Street Journal, ran the column under the title: “The Meaning of an Olympic Snub” and the subtitle: “The Arab world has a problem of the mind, and its name is anti-Semitism,” which is a quote from the article. With the word anti-Semitism appearing seven more times in the piece, it was published on August 16, 2016 in the Journal.

Susan Shapiro is not a militant Jewish leader the way that Zuckerman and Stephens are, and her article reflects this reality. By contrast, Stephens and Zuckerman are self-appointed Jewish leaders, and this is reflected in the Stephens column where the word anti-Semitism features ubiquitously. It is also reflected in the title of the Shapiro article for which Zuckerman's publication has falsely featured the word anti-Semitism.

What should we make of all this? Well, before plunging into a discussion concerning this one piece of the puzzle portraying the human condition, let's look at other pieces to get a sense of what else the puzzle may contain. For example, there was a time when apartheid South Africa had banned its Black athletes from joining the team that would compete in the Olympics, and the world responded by banning South Africa itself from the Olympics.

We can haggle all we want as to whether or not Israel is running an apartheid regime in occupied Palestine, the fact is that many people on this planet believe that it does. And they react as individuals or as a group by boycotting the Israeli athletes the only way they know how, which is to avoid them. Some people point to what Israel is doing to the region, and justify their stance; some point to what it is doing to the Palestinian population, and some point to what it is doing to the Palestinian athletes who wish to go to the Olympics but are banned through myriads of Israeli regulations designed to prevent them.

It is normal in a situation like this to discover that people take sides. Not only that, but they will support or reject one side or the other to one level or another – ranging along the entire spectrum from mild support to extreme rejection. There will even be a group of people who will see the situation as an unfortunate human tragedy, and sympathize with both sides at the same time.

This sort of conflict being a reality of the human condition, we ask if there is a way out. The answer is yes, and the resolution usually comes about in one of two ways. Either one side crushes the other and dictates its terms; or both sides take confidence building measures by gradually deescalating the hostilities between them while gradually increasing their cooperation. This is what the Arabs have tried to do with the initiative they proposed to normalize relations with Israel. And this is what Israel has been rejecting for ten years now.

It is clear from Shapiro's piece that she also prefers that option. The trouble is that she is handicapped by the fact that she is cut-off from the Palestinian side, thus has no idea how a Palestinian mother feels, seeing that her children are forced to live on a few drops of water a day because the Jews steal their water. They steal it to fill swimming pools of which they take pictures and tell prospective Jewish immigrants overseas not to worry about water being scarce in Israel. And they steal it to give a glass of it to a stranger so that Bret Stephens and those like him can brag about Jewish generosity.

And this brings us to the Stephens column. Neither he nor Zuckerman want a resolution of the conflict based on equality. Instead, they want to establish dominion over the situation in Palestine and America. In fact, the Jews have established dominion over many aspects of American life using the anti-Semitic accusation as a weapon to crush those who tried to stand up to them. The Jewish leaders also blackmailed evangelical pastors, forcing them to run around the country and tell their flocks to worship the Jew – any Jew – like they worship Jesus.

Aware that they are steadily losing those Evangelical flocks, and keen to tighten their dominion over America's teeming masses, Stephens and Zuckerman are reviving the use of the anti-Semitic accusation in the hope of making some gains. Worse, they are using the accusation in conjunction with the preaching that the pastors used to do effectively but no more. Here is an example of how Stephens is struggling with the situation now:

“Historian Paul Johnson noted that whenever anti-Semitism took hold, social and political decline followed … Spain expelled its Jews; the effect was to deprive Spain of a class notable for the astute handling of finance … In czarist Russia, anti-Semitic laws led to Jewish emigration as well as an increase in administrative corruption. Germany might have won the race for the atomic bomb if Hitler hadn't sent Albert Einstein et al into exile”.

It is that the Evangelical pastors were fraudulently warning their flocks: if America loses its Jews, it will go to hell the way that Spain, Russia and Germany did, and Stephens is repeating that idea. To cement it in the heads of the masses, he says it is happening to the Arabs because they got rid of their Jews.

To document that fiction, he resorted to the Jewish habit of mutilating history. And that's what his article is all about. It is a piece good for the trash can and nothing else.

M. Bloomberg should know what befell I. Asper

There was a time when Izzy (Israel) Asper had a thriving broadcast business based in Canada, and reaching out to Australia and Turkey. Things were going well for him because the Jewish Hate And Incitement Machine (JHAIM) wasn't going near his enterprise.

In fact the policy of the Jewish leaders was fashioned in such a way as to exploit the government funded network in first place, the non-Jewish private networks in second place, and the Jewish owned networks in third place. Because the Jews had near total control of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and partial control of the non-Jewish private networks, they did not touch Asper's network.

What happened then was that Netanyahu of the Likud decided it wasn't enough for the CBC to be only 100 percent biased in favor of Israel and the other Jewish causes; and it wasn't enough for the non-Jewish private networks to be only biased in favor of Israel and the Jewish causes; he wanted more – much more. He wanted to see all the non-Jews turn into full-throated round-the-clock unadulterated anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hate and incitement machines.

They did for a while, but the stink rose to such heights, the networks were forced, by the force of public opinion to back-off. This is when the JHAIT started to infiltrate Asper's network and gradually take control of it. By the time that the Jewish leaders were in total control of the network, they were broadcasting daily anti-Arab and anti-Muslim pieces of pure hate and open incitement.

The piece that drew most attention was the one in which the network incited anyone out there who feared they might be infected with the West Nile virus to sue the government for failing to warn the population about the danger of the virus from Egypt because – as they put it – political correctness. But then, the truth came out, and it was to the effect that West Nile referred not to Egypt but to a province in Uganda where the virus had its beginnings.

As it turned out, a team of Jewish-Israelis with dual American citizenship had gone to that province to work on sabotaging Egypt's effort to negotiate an equitable deal with the Nile Basin countries for sharing the Nile waters. Members of the team caught the disease, took it to Israel, and from there to New York and Canada. That's when political correctness really played a role at killing the story.

The net result is that the performance of Izzy Asper's network in this matter – when added to the accumulated other interferences by JHAIM – brought it disdain, disgrace and disrepute. The network went into a downward spiral to finally die an ignominious death.

Well, my friend, a similar scenario seems to have started playing itself in the Bloomberg publishing empire. You can see evidence of that in the article which came under the title: “Egypt's Failing Economy Is Sisi's Fault,” published on August 16, 2016 on the Bloomberg View website.

Talking about the deal that Egypt has reached with the IMF for a bridge loan, the writer/editor says the following at the start of his presentation: “If recent history is any guide, it's likely to be good money thrown after bad.” And this is how he ends his argument: “Egypt can once again be a place worth investing in – but before that happens, a lot will have to change.” His aim is clear; it is to scare prospective investors who might be mulling investing in Egypt.

Between the start and the end of the presentation, the writer cites a number of statistics (considered to be bad) and omits others (considered to be good.) The bad statistics are what he says is a 13 percent unemployment rate (actually it's 12.5 percent), a trade deficit of 7 percent of GDP, and a budget deficit of 12 percent. Well, believe it or not, these numbers would make many European nations drool. But the one statistic he omitted that would make America drool is the growth rate. It has been 4.2 percent, and if worse comes to worse, will only drop to 3.9 percent for the fiscal year just started.

The writer/editor blames some of Egypt's woes on circumstances outside of the nation's control, and he adds “but much of the blame can be placed directly on Sisi.” He tries to explain that, but his words come out like fragments from an exploding cluster bomb of pure ignorance.

Here is an article in a business publication whose editor has prepared himself by reading two widely ridiculed articles published long ago in such stalwart business publications as CNN and the New York Times. And he consulted nothing of what professional business writers review before writing something they submit for publication.

Look what he says has happened to the inflow of foreign money into Egypt: “[they were] squandered on mega-projects of dubious merit, including a huge expansion of the Suez Canal.” He goes on: “Fortunately the dream of building a brand-new capital city seems to have been set aside”.

Well, even a casual observer of events in Egypt would have known that the expansion of the Suez Canal was entirely financed with a bond issue that only Egyptians could buy and pay for with the local currency – the Egyptian Pound. As to the new capital city, work has already started on it, and is picking up steam.

If the editor of Bloomberg View had been reading dispatches other than those coming from CNN or the New York Times, he would have known that one of the reasons why the IMF agreed to loan Egypt the money, is because the country has embarked on those mega projects.

Everything else that the editor of Bloomberg View says is baseless ideas and wishful thinking such as those coming from the characters that populate the JHAIM.

The Bloomberg publishing empire is so big and powerful, it will take a lot more than that to make it suffer materially, but that doesn't mean it cannot suffer morally when it starts to experience disdain, disgrace and disrepute.

Michael Bloomberg has work to do to repair the damage already done, and has the obligation to make sure that JHAIM does not infiltrate his enterprise deeper still.