How America addressed the World then and now

There was a time, from the late Forties to the mid-Sixties, when America was basking in the glory of its World War II military triumphs. At the same time, the world was busy rebuilding itself in the aftermath of a bruising war that left it close to the edge of destitution.

There was no internet or satellite television at the time and so, America communicated with the world via the printed word of its newspapers and magazines, and most importantly via its film industry. The first method secured a small audience of literate readers abroad. The second secured a large audience that appreciated the visual language via which America addressed the common denominator of which it was a part.

The world loved the comedic slapstick; the action, the spectacular scenery and photographic tricks of Hollywood's films. But while the audiences were consuming all of that, Hollywood was feeding them something else as well, this time subliminally. It was feeding them visual evidence of the opulence that was America's lifestyle known as the American dream. Nice homes, a car or two in every driveway, and most importantly – if not a chicken in every pot – there was a refrigerator in every kitchen shown to be full of colorful foods and beverages that must have made a hungry world salivate over the American way of life.

Hollywood's message to the world was clear: We have a political and economic system that makes it possible for us to have all this. You too can have it all if you reject what our opponent is offering, adopt our system of governance and become our ally.

Well, whichever way the world responded to that call, decades have passed and today, there is an internet and satellite television that nearly wiped out the printed publications, and rendered the Hollywood flicks just another commodity that competes for attention against dozens of domestic and foreign rivals. The slapstick, the action, the scenery and the tricks are still there, but the novelty is gone and so is the old-time loftiness that used to elevate the visual enterprise. Also, given that the use of personal computers will produce anything the imagination can come up with; the audiences are no longer awed by what they see.

As to subliminal messages advertising the American way of life, that's another story altogether. No longer does Hollywood flaunt America's homes or buildings at a time when new cities, rising everywhere in the world, make America look like a Third World country. No longer does America flaunt its refrigerators – full or empty of food – when all that it uses are foreign made refrigerators. No longer does America flaunt its cars when the truth is that it bribes the foreign makers to come and make their cars in America.

So the question to ask is this: What does America's information machine do to sell the nation's message abroad? The honest response is that there is no clear answer to this question at this time. The fact is that America is undergoing a cultural upheaval that rivals the Chinese Cultural Revolution of the Sixties. The exception is that the Chinese Revolution was managed by a strong central government, whereas the American is managed by a variety of “power centers” known as lobby groups. Each one sets its own agenda, and imposes it on the various levels of government.

One powerful lobby is the Judeo-Israeli group. It is made of professionals that work on the politicians in their places of work. It is also made of opinion-makers that run the media and the so-called think tanks. An example of their work came under the title: “Sorry – US involvement is the only way to reduce civilian casualties.” It is an article that was written by Benny Avni, and published on March 28, 2017 in the New York Post.

Let me tell you something, my friend. I am not writing a script for a Hollywood movie, and so I do not have to tell a long story before cutting to the chase. I already gave you an adequate preamble, so let me go directly to the chase. The point is this: from the first paragraph to the last, the Benny Avni message is not America's message to the world; it is the Jewish message to the world.

America is treated like a beast of burden that's given the task of realizing – not the American dream but – the age-old Jewish dream of preparing the world for the day when the Messiah will come and give the Jews the key to world domination, thus make them masters of His creation.

Read the Benny Avni article and see for yourself.

They excuse one and condemn the other

There was a time during the reign of Begin and Shamir – both of whom spoke English with a heavy East European accent – when we used to hear the biblical expression: “we'll break their bones.” It was the promise and the threat they and their people made regularly to scare the Palestinian kids who were fighting for their freedom battling the Israeli occupation of their homeland.

After a while, someone told the two characters, it sounds bad in English when the Prime Minister of Israel speaks in such vivid terms to scare kids who have nothing to fight with but bare hands and stones, standing up to tanks and helicopter gunships equipped with machine guns and cluster bombs. Driven and piloted by killers, those death machines and their occupants were out in force killing Palestinians and looting their properties. Not only did the Israeli military go after the kids in their domain, it went after them in Lebanon where the military made it a hobby to target the Palestinian refugee camps, murdering men, women and children in cold blood.

That's when everyone who is a red-blooded human being could not help but try to visualize what the Jews were seeing in their mind's eyes when they promised to break the bones of those they were out to rob. It is only now, decades later, that Clifford D. May has offered to help in this regard. He did it by giving a vivid description of what the Jews were seeing when they spoke as they did. May volunteered to help in an article he wrote under the title: “A bloody day in London town” and the subtitle: “The ideologies driving the carnage can't be fought until they are understood,” published on March 28, 2017 in The Washington Times.

Here is what he wrote, apparently quoting someone anonymous: “smashing their bodies with the vehicle's strong outer frame while advancing forward – crushing their heads, torsos, and limbs under the vehicles wheels and chassis.” And that's not to mention the machine-gun bullets and the bombs that did a hundred times more damage than a single vehicle that's out of control. The thing, however, is that Clifford May was not describing what the Israeli military had been doing in Palestine and Lebanon; he was describing what happened when someone drunk and high on drugs, drove a car into a crowd in the city of London.

The reason why Clifford May wrote that article was to say that the driver of the vehicle was a recent convert to Islam, therefore it must be that something about Islam makes people commit this sort of crimes. He neglected to say that the man lived a life of drugs and alcohol in defiance of Islam's teachings. And the reason why May omitted these facts is that to reveal them would have led to the conclusion that being defiant of Islam in the way that he lived, it must be that he committed his ultimate crime also in defiance of Islam – not because of it.

So, the question to ask is this: Could it be that the British born man who committed the atrocity in London was motivated by the same sort of sentiment that drove a Jewish American to call Jewish centers in America, Canada and Australia, and threaten them with bombs? It is clear that the Jew was trying to frame the White supremacists or the Muslims. By the same token, could it be that the convert to Islam was actually a hater of both Islam and Christianity, and that he sought by his action to start a war between them? This would have duplicated the atrocity of the man that gunned down a number of Black worshipers in a church basement in America.

The reason why we're not getting anywhere near understanding what motivates these individuals is that the coverage of the news about them is badly skewed. In fact, the difference between the normal coverage of such incidents, and the coverage that involves Jews or Muslim impersonators is so stark, no one can miss seeing it.

Look what happened with the American Jew. It did not take two minutes after catching him to explain that despite the sophistication of his scheme, the man was said to suffer – not just from a mental illness – but from a tumor that was affecting his judgment. Pity him. It is that when the culprit is a Jew, they always find an excuse to absolve him. They did so by labeling eccentric the Australian Jew that tried to burn a mosque in Jerusalem. Pity him. And they did it when an Israeli doctor went into a mosque at prayer time, and machine-gunned dozens of worshipers. The excuse they had for him was that the pressure of his profession got the better of him. Pity him.

But when it comes to the Arabs or the Muslims, they are said to do what they do because they are driven by a mind that's constantly operating at the highest level of its potential. In the eyes of Clifford May and all those like him, the Arabs and the Muslims must always be held responsible for what they do. No excuse that might absolve them can ever be cited no matter what the evidence shows. This is Jewish style fairness.

Using a forked Tongue where they can get away

If you ever wondered what relationship exists between the Jews and the habit of lying, you just got lucky because two articles have appeared, offering a comprehensive illustration of what you're looking for. You may at long last find the answer to your question.

The first article came under the title: “Is Israel losing its soul?” It was written by Richard Cohen – a Jew residing in America – and published on March 27, 2017 in the Washington Post. The second article came under the title: “Israel's Next War Is Always Inevitable,” written by Larry Derfner – a Jew residing in Israel – and published on March 28, 2017 in the New York Times.

Having seen the title in Cohen's article, you expect to read a piece that will be critical of Israel but also respectful of it considering that the writer is Richard Cohen, an avowed Zionist. A split second later, you start reading the first paragraph, and you find it to be a diatribe attacking the United Nations and Saudi Arabia. And you instantly realize that no change has occurred to the substance of Cohen's views with regard to the subject he is tackling. What has changed is only the form he has adopted to make his presentation.

You're not sure at this point what to make of all that. Eventually, however, you get to read the title and first paragraph of Larry Derfner's article, and discover that the two have the same theme. It is that the Israelis now believe and have always believed that “the next war is inevitable.” From there, the writer goes on to develop the theme without deviating to tangents that distract the reader. This approach being so different from that of Richard Cohen, you wonder why a Jew writing in America is so different from a Jew writing in Israel.

It does not take Derfner long before supplying the answer to that question. He does it by revealing that “The next war must hit civilians where it hurts, Israeli minister says.” This is honesty standing as a complete reversal to how the Israelis used to present their case to the world. It is a big change; one that must have come as a result of this: “What hardly any Israeli will consider is that Israel is provoking the next war”.

That means the Israelis never worried about starting a war or killing civilians as long as the world believed the lie that the enemy started the war, and did so to kill Israeli civilians. This was happening, they used to say, at a time when Israel was killing only evil combatants. But now that the Israelis cannot sell those lies, they admit to the truth, even brag about it. And this is why Derfner took the liberty to quote Netanyahu as saying: “That is what was and that is what will be.” The Prime Minister could not have admitted to war crimes more explicitly.

But why is it that Richard Cohen and his American comrades – members of the Jewish mob of pundits – are incapable of making the change from telling lies to telling the truth … and if necessary bragging about it? We find one reason in Cohen's article. It came in this form: “The word 'apartheid' clearly does not apply to Israel. Its founding document is admirably liberal.” But unlike Netanyahu that bragged about Israel's military capabilities, Cohen bragged about this: “Israel grants its Arab minority the vote, and had a female prime minister. The United States is not there yet”.

This is a big deception because the debate is about the occupation of the West Bank where the Arabs are not allowed to vote. Cohen deliberately created confusion by switching the discussion to what is called “Israel proper.” In any case, whatever the size of his deception, it is but an atom compared to the mountain-size deception that followed. Speaking of Israel, Cohen said this: “the creation of a nation, and a culture where a century or so ago none existed.” Unwittingly, the writer just dealt his case a fatal blow.

Think about it; while trying to defend Israel against the charge of running an apartheid regime by making the Palestinians second class citizens in the country that was theirs since the beginning of time, Cohen says there was not a nation or a culture in Palestine before the advent of the Jews. You know what, my friend? The Afrikaners did not go as far as that in their denigration of the Blacks in South Africa. The European settlers of the New Worlds never said such things about the natives. But here you have the Jews saying it about Palestine, one of the crucibles where Civilization was incubated.

Now you know what to make of all that. It is that the Jews in America are pursuing two contradictory discourses at the same time: They say: “We are admirably liberal.” And they say: “we are culturally superior to Palestinians, and politically superior to Americans.” The implication is this: “Give us, Jews, privileges you would not give to someone else in the Republic.” They wish to formalize their ownership of America.

WSJ decomposing Logic of Mud and Horror

The editors of the Wall Street Journal are at it again relying on the Judeo-Yiddish logic of mud and horror to haggle their way into calling on America to contribute to the starvation of the Palestinian people in a place called the West Bank, which Israel – armed with American weapons of all sorts – has turned into a concentration camp.

Whereas America has its fallen heroes and a day of the year in which to honor them. Whereas it has a Veterans Affairs Administration to look after the welfare of those that survived a conflict today or yesterday, the editors of the Wall Street Journal pretend to be indignant that someone else is doing the same thing with their fallen heroes and their surviving veterans.

Whereas Israel is pursuing a similar policy with the soldiers that fought with the Jewish terrorist organizations of yesteryear or those who fought in modern wars, the editors of the Wall Street Journal do not call for cutting off American aid to Israel till it stops paying these people or their families. The editors do not even suggest that the 3.8 billion dollars in yearly military aid which America sends to Israel be reduced by the amount that Israel channels to the soldiers who commit crimes, or to their families.

And yet, this is what the editors of the Journal are demanding be done with regard to the payments that go to the Palestinian Authority (PA). This is money earmarked to alleviate some of the horror that the people under occupation are suffering due to America's support for Israel; the only terrorist syndicate on the planet today, deliberately misnamed a state to hide its crimes.

The editors are not demanding that the payments to the PA be reduced by the amount that goes to the families of the fallen heroes; they are calling for the duplication of the Judeo-Israeli crime against humanity of administering collective punishment against the entire Palestinian population by cutting off the full amount sent to the PA, thus help starve all Palestinians.

Thus, what the editors want to see is money going to an Israeli army of occupation that will be looking over a population being starved to death because some of its youngsters are doing the natural thing of fighting for their freedom and the freedom of their families.

The message to these people is loud and clear: leave the land in which you have lived since the beginning of time or die on it. One way or the other, the Jews will take what has been yours for thousands of years. America is paying for all that, and America will now help starve you to death.

You can see how the Stone Age logic of biblical times has infested the brains of the WSJ editors, has decomposed them and has mutilated them beyond recognition – when you go over the piece which came under the title: “Pay for Slay in Palestine” and the subtitle: “U.S. aid becomes a transfer payment for terrorists,” written by those editors and published on March 28, 2017 in the Journal.

You'll see that the editors have used the world “moral” twice. They used it once at the start of the piece: “this is a chance to bring policy into line with moral and strategic realities.” And they used it again near the end: “moral rectitude often entails facing dangers”.

The morality they talk about is what you see in the Jewish Old Testament. It is the one that says torture and kill the children of your enemies to make their parents suffer the most. It is the morality that the Jews used to rob Egypt of its treasures, kill its babies and run into the desert. It is the morality that became the foundation upon which they built a religion.

This is the morality they have been celebrating religiously each year for thousands of years on Passover. And they are making it clear they have no intention to relinquish it or modify it to suit the modern era.

On the contrary, they are so enamored with it; they try to drag America into it. The sad part is that there exist enough mentally retarded politicians in America to go along with their scheme.

Height of Wisdom or Depth of Folly?

It is said that history repeats itself, but it is also known that history does not do so in the exact same manner each time. Moreover, it is said that we should learn from history before charting a course into the future to be certain that we'll be taking the correct course. But the future is so filled with random events; we can never plan for the unexpected with any kind of certainty. As to the present, no one understands it well enough to be considered a living icon of wisdom.

Well then, if we are ignorant of past, present and future unfolding of events, can we be certain that we have the ability to organize for and live the moral life? Maybe not. But philosophers have lived among us who said we do not need that ability to be a moral person. We only need to know that moral life can be attained by resolving to treat others the way we want them to treat us. In fact, no matter the formulation – and there have been several versions – that articulation is referred to as the Golden Rule.

Well, it is easy for a philosopher to speak in those terms when addressing individuals because each of us is responsible for the self, expecting to reap the reward or the punishment that may result from the decisions we take. But what about the people who govern an institution or a nation? They are responsible for the welfare of a multitude of people, and their mandate is to maximize the benefit that accrues to all the constituents. Fair or not, these people are expected to constantly seek to realize maximum benefit even if it should come at the expense of the multitudes populating the other jurisdictions.

This is a problem. To try resolving it, we must abandon the world of the abstract and enter the world of the practical. Whereas morality that is practiced at the personal level has a positive root in the sense that we feel good about ourselves when we do a good deed, morality that is practiced at the institutional or international levels has a negative root. In fact, institutions and nations treat each other according to set rules – whether or not they were codified as laws – to avoid retaliation by the other side. In other words, negative morality is generated because the response is one of fear.

This brings us to an interesting article that came under the title: “When sanctions work – and why they fail,” written by Ralph Peters and published on March 24, 2017 in the New York Post. The author discusses the situation with regard to three nations: North Korea, Iran and Russia. He says that America applied sanctions against them with the result that some sanctions yielded the desired effect but others did not.

Be that as it may, the question that should be of interest to us is that of morality. Some people will argue that positive morality is involved in this question because these are evil regimes, and anything we do to curb their excesses should make us feel good. No. This is a self-defeating argument because a judgment of the self is always self-serving and always void. We can only be judged by a third party or by history. Until this happens, institutions and nations are motivated to respond in such a way as to maximize the benefit that may accrue to their constituents, and minimize the damage that may result from a clash with another jurisdiction.

This obligates us to question the wisdom of those who pilot the American ship of state. Few people if any will fault America for taking on the role of policeman of the world in the aftermath of the Second World War. But this tendency should have been quashed after Vietnam. It was not. And the consequence has been that displaying America's military might nowadays elicits a response which says: We dare you to come and get us, America! It is what Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea have said.

The truth is that America no longer gets the respect it used to get. In addition, logic and experience say that the trend which started after Vietnam will only grow till it reaches a point when those whom America has humiliated, will soon have the means and the will to return the favor. What America is doing – applying sanctions left and right – is dig its own grave. Its captains will be hard pressed to show the wisdom in what they are doing.

Besides seeing itself supreme militarily after defeating the forces of the Axis, America was also ahead of the world economically and culturally. But the world economic map has changed so dramatically that China has set-up the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, an institution that promises to do away with the World Bank and the IMF, heretofore dominated by America. And the nations of the world – big and small – are flocking to it.

As to culture, things have so deteriorated in America; it is no exaggeration to say that no one will take the American political or educational systems even if they are paid.

This means that for America to act now as if it were basking in the glory days that followed the Second World War is to display the depth of folly, not the height of wisdom.

The Puzzle of looking at A while targeting B

Do you know why for several decades American foreign policy has been failing miserably? If you don't, then study the analogy below, and you may develop a good insight as to what was happening during all those decades.

Imagine aliens from a far away galaxy invading the Earth, and we do not detect them. They hate that we are a violent species, so they devise a strategy to counter our primitive impulses. To this end, they make it so that every time a soldier anywhere on the planet tries to fire a gun, he sees the target not where it actually is but more to the left or more to the right. And so, when the soldier pulls the trigger – whether it is a hand-held gun or one that's mounted on the turret of a war machine of some kind – he misses the target.

And the aliens do not stop here. They go to the offices of the companies that manufacture all kinds of weapons, and make it so that when the bosses in the executive suites look at the charts and the numbers, they see something different from what's really there. And so, based on false readings, they give the orders that ultimately ruin the companies and put them out of business.

You must have guessed by now that these are good aliens. And you are correct. But what you did not guess was that these aliens have evil twins known as nemeses. And what the nemeses did was to take the form of monkeys, and lodge themselves on America's back. Their agenda has been that every time America tried to do something good for the world or itself, the monkeys made it so that the people in charge of America's foreign policy saw and heard one thing only: It is Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel. Thus, whenever America tried to deal with B, it ended up dealing with A, which is Israel.

So now you want me to show proof that something like this has been happening. Okay, my friend, I'll do that for you. But you'll have to help me help you. And you do this by reading an article that came under the title: “How to Defeat ISIS,” written by Lee Smith, and published on March 24, 2017 in the Weekly Standard.

What you'll discover when you read this article, is that the discussion begins with the theme of defeating ISIS to defend and protect Iraq. The discussion then abruptly shifts to take up Israel's familiar agenda of inciting America to do battle with Iran and Hezbollah while pretending that this will protect not Israel, but America. Imagine.

To explain this logic, Smith employs the usual 3 steps of the Jewish haggle: (1) mutilating history; (2) pretending to know what the Arabs think and feel, and (3) blaming the whole thing on former President Barack Obama.

And so, he begins with the lie that during the “surge,” the Bush administration protected the Sunnis by tackling the Shiite militias. The Obama administration then followed Bush into the White House and abandoned the policy, he says. This is why “Sunnis who might otherwise have resisted ISIS refused to buy in,” he goes on to say. Well, you can always count on a Jew pretending to know what others thinks and feel till they start rejecting him, and he expresses surprise that such a thing is happening to him.

Having gotten this far, Lee Smith now wants to motivate President Trump to go after Iran and Hezbollah. Here too, he employs the Jewish trick of playing on the President's ego by accusing him of something he is not. He says this: “Trump appears to be stuck in the ruts left by his predecessor.” Not only that; he also unloads on the Iraqi government: “In November the Iraqi Parliament recognized the [Shiite] militias as legitimate military forces.” This should signal to President Trump that the situation is critical, and he must act without delay.

This brings to an end Lee Smith's look at the real issue, which is the welfare of Iraq and its people. He now abruptly switches to serving Israel's agenda by targeting Hezbollah and through it, targeting Iran. To do this, he speaks of “the terrorist organization that controls Lebanon, its army, and government – Hezbollah.” And he quotes the President of Lebanon as saying that: “the Lebanese army will fight alongside Hezbollah in another war with Israel”.

This revelation must have affected Lee Smith so profoundly, he threw caution to the wind and let out this blurt: “In Washington the Lebanese President had the nerve to ask that the United States continue to support the Lebanese Army.” Wow! Did you get that?

The President of Lebanon reveals that the next time Israel attacks his country, all of its units – regular troops as well as special operations, Hezbollah – will be mobilized to protect the population. And he asks Washington to continue supplying his country with the defensive weapons it will need. So then, what does Lee Smith say about that? He says that the President of Lebanon had the nerve to make this kind of request in America.

The inference is that Israel decides who gets American weapons and who doesn't. Since the President of Lebanon said the weapons will be used to defend against Israeli aggression, it is beyond the pale that he dared to ask America for help.

And this says to the world that the Jews take the superpower so much for granted, they view it not as a free country that makes its own decisions, but one that is the political and diplomatic plantation of the Jews.

These people view America as a place that's not yet ready to become a banana republic; being one that's only good enough to feed the Jewish monkey on its back … till further notice.

The useless Age of Celebrity-worship

Right after I started a small newspaper, I received advice from several individuals telling me that to guarantee immediate and long lasting success; I should invite well known personalities to write for the paper. A number of names were suggested, but I did not contact them to see if they would be interested to join the team, or if they knew someone was promoting them.

My purpose in starting the newspaper, and later this blog, was and remains that I have a message I wish to put out now and leave behind after I'm gone. I never thought it would succeed commercially, and never pursued this angle because the important thing for me is not the reward I may get from my work, but what the work will do to help improve the subjects I choose to tackle.

Sadly, things have evolved in the democracies in such a way that commercial success and intellectual honesty do not go together anymore than you can mix water and oil. A choice between financial success and personal integrity must often be made by almost everyone, and I made mine.

I am aware that in this day and age, many who wish to start something new or perpetuate something old, hitch a ride on the coattails of existing celebrities. This is why companies appoint them to sit as directors, paying them good money even if they attend the board meetings but once a year, if at all. It is why so-called think tanks attract those who could never think an original idea, as well as those who tank every time they open the mouth to say something. And the embarrassing list goes on.

An example of this trend can be seen in the article that came under the title: “The growing threat of nuclear terrorism” and the subtitle: “America and Russia must cooperate to thwart rogue state attacks,” written by Moshe Kantor (who is president and founder of the International Luxembourg Forum For Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe) and published on March 23, 2017 in The Washington Times.

Despite the fact that prominent and well respected names are associated with that Forum, it promises nothing more valuable to the purpose for which Kantor says he created it, than what you saw in the subtitle of his article. In fact, what you'll read in the opening sentence is this: “the nuclear threat from North Korea and Iran...” And with this goes the promise that: “collaboration between the U.S. and Russia [is] a major theme that will be discussed in Washington, D.C. when the Forum convenes.” That's all, you ask? Yes, that's all that Kantor has to offer.

This is like promising a Club-Med caliber brainstorming tour on a luxury cruise ship, but taking the clients on a rowboat across the lake instead. Look what Kantor is saying, and try to find in his words anything that goes beyond what was said thousands of times already … what proved to be as useless as beating a dead horse. Here is a montage of his words, condensed for the sake of brevity:

“China which has so far been reticent to condemn North Korea, their economic and military ally … North Korea is taking liberties with the international community and the UN Security Council has not been tough enough … Trump has identified these sanctions as ineffectual … This is a shameful demonstration of the impotence of the great powers and the Security Council”.

This said about North Korea, Kantor switches to an attack on Iran:

“It is impossible to look at the global threat without considering it in the context of the Iran deal … This deal is a catastrophic mistake of historic proportions … The strict enforcement of the deal's provisions must be high on the international community's agenda”.

And so Kantor recommends the following:

“Leaders of the world powers must make countering nuclear terrorism the highest priority by upholding international security with cooperation … collaboration between intelligence agencies and special operations services will neutralize the risk of nuclear attacks”.

And this is all that Moshe Kantor has to say. It is what he promises will be discussed when the Forum meets in Washington. But could the attendees do better? The answer is yes; they could do better.

If they are serious, they can begin the discussion by calling for the Middle East to be transformed into a nuclear-free zone, thus serve as model for other zones to be so transformed.

For this to work, however, Israel must come clean with its own nuclear program if it has one. It must tell where it has been, and where it stands now.

Only then will the words of Moshe Kantor and his celebrity colleagues be respected around the world.

When Elliott Abrams quotes Efraim Inbar

Not long ago a woman was forcibly raped in Canada by a horrible man. The case went to criminal court where there was no denial that the incident did take place.

Whatever the defense might have been, the judge accusingly asked the victim why she did not keep her knees together. Known as blaming the victim, this mentality caused uproar in the country, and the judge was forced to resign. The reason why someone would blame the victim is to establish the principle that she contributed to her misfortune, a move that would reduce the responsibility of the rapist.

If the judge had gotten away with it, a precedent would have been established to the effect that regardless as to whether or not there was consent, a rape need not be viewed as a crime but a shared responsibility. And so, when it comes to sentencing, it will only be a matter of establishing if the responsibility falls equally on both sides or slightly more to one side than the other. Now imagine a rape victim having to go through a procedure like this.

Can there be something worse than that? Yes there can be. Imagine the victim being treated like the witches of a bygone era. She is kept in the basement of the rapist while the case is adjudicated by the cohort of the rapist, sitting in the courtroom as presiding judge.

You don't have to go too far into the latest of Elliott Abrams's articles to get the feeling he is articulating a case based on the approach of the demented Canadian judge. All you need to do is look at the title of the article: “What's the Palestinian Contribution to Peace?” It was published on March 22, 2017 on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations.

What we have here is a Palestinian population that's kept in a concentration camp called the West Bank. It has the look of a rape victim that's kept in a basement. And you have an Elliott Abrams suggesting that the Palestinian victims must do something to please the criminals responsible for the horror perpetrated on them in concert with their American cohorts. If you must know from where Abrams got his idea, you'll find the answer in the article where you'll see that the philosophical construct he put together, was based on his quoting the work of Efraim Inbar; another American Jew.

But before quoting Inbar, Abrams tells of three principles he likes to see become the basis upon which the negotiations can proceed between the Palestinians and the Israelis. They are: (1) the continuation of Israeli settlement activities even if that should happen on a limited basis; (2) only then can small steps be taken to improve the Palestinian economy; and (3) the spelling out of what the Palestinians must do to merit the trade-off delineated in (1) and (2).

Abrams says that the first two principles were taken up by Jason Greenblatt who, as representative of the American administration, visited the region and conferred with the Palestinians and the Israelis. What is left to discuss, he says, is the third principle. And this is when Abrams quotes Efraim Inbar who espouses a scary idea. In fact, he forcefully tries to justify a philosophy you may call: The blameless rapist.

Inbar began with this complaint: “It is odd to offer carrots to the Palestinians,” his view being that “the Palestinians [are] fed to prevent their erupting into violence.” What this goon goes on to say is worse than the question posed by the demented Canadian judge. He is not suggesting that the victim should have kept her knees together; he is suggesting that if she did, her move would have amounted to an act of violence. This would have made her the aggressor, he says, rendering her singularly responsible for what happened to her. No, that thing, Efraim Inbar, is not a goon; he is a wild two-legged animal.

Elliott Abrams picks it up from there and elaborates on Efraim's complaint, beginning with this: “The channeling of aid to terrorists and their families to which Ephraim Inbar refers...” Whereas people under occupation have always produced freedom fighters that history recognized as icons of selfless nobility, bestowing on them the stature of a Charles de Gaulle or a Nelson Mandela, the Jews want to reverse that order.

What they want is reward Israeli soldiers that shoot to kill wounded Palestinian kids lying on the ground. At the same time, they want to starve the families of the dead Palestinians to deter future youngsters from fighting for their freedom and that of their families. It seems there is more than one animal among the Jews.

The Spit that goes too far sometimes

I've known something for a long time, and wanted to talk about it but didn't have a good reason to do so till now. It's not going to be easy telling it, however, given that it is a multi-layered winding story inside of which you can get lost the way that you would in a three-dimensional labyrinth.

Let me begin by saying a word about the Judeo-Yiddish characteristic that's playing a role in this story. You may have heard of mischievous kids who work in a restaurant and get a kick spitting in the food of a client they consider a “stuffed shirt,” before bringing the plate to him. Well, Jews have a same sort of attitude written into their DNA. I've seen them in their sixties speak with nostalgia and fondness about pranks they pulled on others who never suspected something was being done to them behind their backs.

Living in the English speaking district of Montreal, I mingled with the Jews who were the majority there. I worked with them, socialized with them, and had them as friends or rivals. Some knew who I was, others did not; some thought I was a Jew, others knew better … and so on and so forth. What I'll never forget is that they tried on several occasions to pull a spitting kind of prank on me.

This is how it worked: A prominent American (Brzezinski or Senator Leahy, for example) would say something or do something that the Jews don't like. One of them – supposedly an acquaintance or a friend of mine – would ask if I heard of the incident. I say no, and he tells me about it. What he says, however, is a distorted version of the real thing. The intent is to get me to react – writing in Arabic as I did then – in such a way as to hurt my credibility or hurt the person in America or hurt us both. The Jews equate this sort of activity with spitting in someone's plate behind their back. They get so excited playing the game; they go into orgasm believing they fooled their victim.

When I moved to Ontario where I launched a small English newspaper, I did not meet too many Jews. But I knew they were playing the same sort of game with my advertizing clients because I constantly had to battle the misinformation, disinformation and outright lies they put out about me. Not only did they do it to me in Montreal and Ontario, they did it (and still do) to the English publications which are issued in the Arab World. And believe it or not, they even managed to infest and infect a number of publications issued in Arabic.

This brings me to a Steven A. Cook article that came under the title: “Fake news has a long history in the Middle East – and the lessons for Americans are unmistakably dire,” and the subtitle: “Information has long been falsified and weaponized in Turkey and the Arab world – and we're headed that way fast.” It was published on the website of Salon Magazine on March 19, 2017.

Steven Cook's beef is that a little known television host in Egypt used an old piece of his, and distorted – not its content – but its intent. In other words, Cook did not like the opinion that the man formulated as to why the piece was written in the first place. But that's nothing serious really, given that the piece dealt with the Egyptian economy, and like they say, half a dozen economists will give a dozen interpretations, each meant to confirm the economists' biases. Now try to envisage what could have been the intent of a non-economist.

Still, an indignant Cook calls that incident fake news. He infers from it that it is the habit of all the Arabs and all the Turks in the Middle East to spread fake news. Not surprisingly, he omits Israel which, to tell the truth, is the wellspring of all fake news, not just in the Middle East, but around the world … with a tributary in America known as the mob of Jewish pundits.

These are the people who used an essay written by a student to convince Western intelligence services that Saddam Hussein had WMD. They are the people who constantly put out false information to inform the likes of ISIS where to conduct operations not knowing that the move will serve the interests of Israel. And they are the people who put out fake news to force Israel's own government to adopt policies that serve the interests of Jewish moguls outside of Israel.

To get back to the incident involving the little known broadcaster in Egypt; from where do you think the man could have gotten the Steven Cook piece? You guessed it, no one could or would have volunteered to supply him but one of those motivated by the desire to spit in his plate, and have their orgasm for the day.

Now, my friend, take a deep breath and look how Steven Cook ends his piece: “The problem is that consumers of [fake] information are unaware they are being manipulated, believing that they are getting the truth. Media in the United States is freer and better than most other places in the world”.

Tell that to the millions of lives that perished or were shattered because the Jews that Cook failed to mention pulled the spitting prank that led George W. Bush to invade Iraq and start the chain reaction reverberating to this day in the Levant. Do that, my friend, and you'll know where on the spectrum of fake news and quackery you should place Steven A. Cook.

Seeking coexistence better than itching to fight

Two kinds of people represent two possible ways to live our lives.

There are those who think they are good most of the time and bad some of the time, but never do they think they are truly evil. As to how they view the others; they think that almost no one is really good, and that some are truly evil. This kind of people constantly itch for a fight because they are convinced that the threat that's out there – no matter how small it may seem – will eventually grow and become an existential threat. To defend against it, they subscribe to the idea that the best defense is the offense, and that's why they itch to fight even if no one else sees the danger that they see. These are the hawks you'll find behind every war that flared up needlessly.

As to the other kind of people, it comprises those who believe that human beings are fundamentally good. Absent a provocation for them to turn bad, they refrain from hurting someone as a matter of course. At other times, they'll go out of their way to help those who need a helping hand. Their philosophy of life is based on the principle of “live and let live.” This is why you'll find that when a dispute flares up between two parties in the neighborhood, they are there doing what they can to reestablish the order of peaceful coexistence. These are the doves you'll find behind every volunteer group that brings relief to the afflicted.

Clifford D. May and others like him are of the hawkish kind who never speak or write to counsel “giving peace a chance.” On the contrary, they consider those who do a dangerous breed of people whose effort at promoting peace encourages the evil ones to do bad things. Their view is that the hawks are the good people, which is why they should always be ready to defend themselves. The way they do this is by going aggressively against the people who do not stand with them.

Clifford May wrote yet another article in which he expounds this approach to life. It came under the title: “Trump's pivot to North Korea,” and the subtitle: “It's high time the United States deals with the most imminent nuclear threat,” published on March 21, 2017 in The Washington Times. His target this time is North Korea and its leaders; people he paints as evil and dangerous.

The question is: what should we make of this? Aside from what we think of North Korea or its leaders, how can we evaluate the honesty of someone like Clifford May who attacks the others – not to disseminate information that could be of interest to the general public – but to incite those who are listening, to adopt his philosophy, arm themselves and get ready to do battle with North Korea?

If, in this context, we define the word “honesty” to mean the fairness that the author displays when discussing North Korea, we must compare what his says about that entity with what he normally says about another entity. Who might that be? Well, since May's preoccupation has always been the Middle East, we must compare the stance he takes on North Korea with the stance he takes on Israel.

What is known about North Korea is that it has nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Its leaders say they need these weapons because the war that flared on the Korean Peninsula more than six decades ago has not ended. America still maintains troops in the South, and still conducts regular exercises aimed at preparing to fight the North. It is therefore the duty of the country's leaders to do what they can to defend their people. Having those weapons is their insurance policy.

What is known about Israel is that it says it has an arsenal of nuclear bombs, a fleet of ballistic missiles, and submarines that can deliver those weapons anywhere in the world. Aside from the fact that everyone knows this is a hoax of the most Jewish kind, Clifford May never repudiated Israel for having those weapons, or for lying about them. Contrast this fact with what he says about North Korea, and you'll see the double-standard by which he judges the two entities.

And since the double standard is a strong indication that intellectual dishonesty is the foundation upon which the Clifford May philosophy is built, his argument about North Korea must be rejected. And since that argument forms the essence of the hawkish argument in general, that argument proves to be as pointless as Israel's pretense it has an arsenal of nuclear weapons. It is Jewish rubbish.

The lessons of Vietnam, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria and Yemen should tell the Americans it is better to seek human coexistence than to itch for Jewish fights.

They got an Inch, watch them lose the Mile

Some of us may remember a time when we were young, and something happened in school that seemed to be a serious event. We could not fathom how big the event was or what the ramifications might be. All we saw were teachers and school officials walk around with a strange look on their faces, giving the entire scene a feel of unreality we never imagined.

Classes were suspended, perhaps for an hour or longer while the matter was being resolved behind closed doors. And it was during this interlude that the character of each pupil played itself out in the open. Some pupils sympathized with the adults and looked worried, even frightened. Other pupils saw an opportunity to have fun and celebrate the moment. The first group wanted to see things go back to normal as soon as possible; the second wanted to see the moment extended as long as possible.

Now, decades later, as you enter the twilight of your years, the world around you seems to have staged that same scene again but with a difference. The background is not that of a school, and the audience is not that of children. The players are employees of America's State Department, as well as the mob of Jewish pundits that's cheer-leading them. You get a taste of what's happening nowadays when you go over the article that came under the title: “Team Trump is already kicking butt at the United Nations,” written by Benny Avni and published on March 20, 2017 in the New York Post.

Unlike what happened at the school decades ago – about which you were not informed, being the child that you were – what's happening today is no secret to anyone. It is the story of a band of vagrant drifters who had a rough time everywhere they went, but managed to survive. And then, it happened that they met their match who almost annihilated them. They went crying to humanity saying that what happened could have been avoided if they had a home of their own in which to live a quiet life like everyone else.

Humanity was so moved; it forced a family in good standing to take them in. Being who they are, however, the drifters wasted no time turning the homestead into the proverbial animal house, except that these animals are of the gun-wielding variety. They move around in tanks and armored vehicles carrying machine-guns they use to savage the owners of the homestead. They also keep threatening everyone else in the neighborhood, having brought the world to the edge of the precipice at least once every generation.

Humanity reacted to those crimes the way that human beings always do; they demanded that the drifters change the way they interact with others. Rather than do so, the drifters pulled the ace card from their sleeve and used it to buy more time as they waited yet again for their thousand-year fantasy to materialize. As to the card they pulled from their sleeve; it turned out to be none other than the American Department of State.

As it happened, the drifters had taken advantage of the fact America is a welcoming society that (1) has a high tolerance for the foibles of those who come and settle in the land, and (2) has a high propensity to be deceived by a talented con artist. And so the drifters set-out to deceive the American people … which they did as easily as a magician deceives a group of children.

In the aggregate, the outcome of the drifters' work has been that America's ruling elites of every stripe are now trained to rape the little people that vote for them. Hence, the elites' message to the little people of America: No matter who you vote for, the Jews will always be your masters. You are required to do what they tell you to do; not what you choose to do. As unreal as it may sound, this is a bipartisan command.

This mentality provoked the little people of America to go into full rebellion mode. They made it clear they hate being treated like second class citizens in their country while the Jews – who profess allegiance to Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel – get to be treated like royalty. But instead of turning away from walking this uniquely American plank of depravity and start looking after their people, the elites at the State Department spend time and energy working on schemes to inflict on the world what the Jews taught them to inflict on their people.

The Jews got an inch of what they wanted, says Avni. Perhaps. But their child-like celebration to the small win they scored is bound to increase the anger of the little people of America. The result can only be that they will find it difficult to win the mile they were counting on.

Haggling to sound smart and to self-serve

It looks and sounds like a gathering at the wailing wall of the Jewish mob of pundits. This is one of the many impressions you get when reading “Can Trump Refrain from Repeating His Predecessor's Mistakes in Syria?” an article that was written by Matthew RJ Brodsky, and published on March 18, 2017 in The National Interest.

When was the last time you saw a Jew quote Tony Badran, Lee Smith, Michael Doran, Dennis Ross, Bret Stephens, Charles Krauthammer and Jeffrey Goldberg – all in one and the same article? In fact, these are the ones you meet in Brodsky's article. And the reason why he has them in there, is to give the world a simple message: Look how smart we, the Jews, are yet nobody listened to us when they should have. And so, Syria's Assad remains in place when he could have been vanquished had someone listened to what we were saying.

Sob, sob, sob … wail, wail, wail.

To fully articulate his point of view, Brodsky does what the Jews always do, which is to write history in the way that suits the master plan they are working on at the time. Right now, what worries the Jews is the mess that Israel has created in Lebanon. This gave rise to Hezbollah – Lebanon's capable defense force – that's about to have its coronation when it formally links with a reborn Syria, to then live and thrive under the protection of a triumphant Russia and a vastly empowered Iran.

That's what created the necessity for the Jews to start working on a master plan that will pull the Jewish-owned American beast-of-burden by the nose and get it to appropriate unlimited lives and treasures to protect Israel, to inflate the ego of its leaders, and to make the Jews feel special. It is that these people crave being thought of as the “only” ones for whom America will starve its own children and will send its own young to die while protecting Israel. In return for this service, the Jews are prepared to grant America the honor of being the first to kiss Netanyahu's ring.

And so, Matthew Brodsky sets out to inform the Americans who are in charge of foreign policy that “others, including myself, argued for early intervention on both strategic and humanitarian grounds. We were rebuffed by those on both sides of the political aisle.” This is to make the politicians feel guilty and ashamed for refusing once before to listen to the advice of the Jews. And having reduced their tendency to reject criticism, he now targets the one politician that's of interest to him and hits him with this: “When it comes to the Middle East, newly elected American presidents have a tendency to veer toward overcorrection”.

That's the mistake Brodsky tells President Trump he must avoid making. To show him that when someone makes a mistake, he lives to regret it, Brodsky tells the story of Hillary Clinton's former adviser, Frederic Hof who did his mea culpa like this: “Obama said Assad should step aside. I told Congress that the regime was a dead man walking. When the president issued his red-line warning, I predicted that crossing the line would bring the regime a body blow. I do not understand how such a gap between word and deed could have been permitted. It is an error that transcends Syria”.

So what's the President of the United States to do according to Matthew Brodsky, acting as spokesman for the entire mob of Jewish pundits and lobbyists? He must avoid overcorrecting this way or that way, says Brodsky. This being the case: “The United States is in need of a Goldilocks policy – solutions in between the way too hot and way too cold spectrum,” he goes on to explain.

But how should he do that? This is a good question that seems to find a simple answer in Brodsky's article. If you look hard enough, you'll find that the message implied in this piece of work is for Donald Trump to turn to the Jews. The author did not speak of them as a swarm that's lobbying for the sake of Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel; he spoke of them as the smart ones who can achieve anything you ask of them.

Maybe so, but right now they have American Senator Tom Cotton (nicknamed pile of rotting meat) over there in Israel, instructing him on how to work in the congress on mobilizing America and preparing it to do battle against Hezbollah, Syria and Iran, even if it comes into conflict with Russia.

And they will be calling on the mob of Jewish pundits and lobbyists to tell them how to support what Cotton will be doing in the congress by doing more of what Matthew Brodsky just did. These people never give up.

The Difference between History and Histrionics

Histrionics is a word that's used to refer to the representation on stage of events that may or may not have happened in history as represented.

The word is now used to refer to the unfolding of historical events simply as a chronological succession of happenings without mentioning the motivations, idiosyncrasies or character of the players involved. Also ignored is the possibility that other extraneous factors might have played a role in precipitating the historical events.

One such piece of histrionics came under the title: “We lost a war: Russia's interference in our election was much more than simple mischief-making,” published on March 19, 2017 in the New York Daily News. It was written by professor of history Timothy Snyder who should not be judged one way or the other for what he did or neglected to do, given that he is pioneering the study of “cyberwars,” a new phenomenon that will take the contribution of many other commentators before its parameters will have been established.

In fact, Snyder has a sentence in the first paragraph of his article showing how he has tried to transition from the rules of traditional history to those of what's now taking shape. Here is that sentence: “The war followed the new rules of the 21st century, but its goal was the usual one of political change.” He is hinting in essence that because the goal has not changed, he does not have to elaborate on it. What's left to do, therefore, is work on deciphering the new rules of the game. And so, he set out to do just that.

But shortly thereafter, something happened to the process of writing the article; it might have alerted someone else to the reality that something wasn't kosher. What took place was that Snyder mentioned an information manual that was discussing what the Russians call the “psychosphere.” He explains that the manual describes what they consider to be “the experience of being an American citizen in 2016.” And this is precisely the moment when Snyder should have realized that not only did the rules of the game change, but so did the goal. Had he been aware of this, he would have spent time pinpointing that goal and discussing it.

Having quoted the 19th century general, Carl von Clausewitz, who said that the goal of war was to “compel our enemy to do our will,” Snyder should have remarked that in the cyberwars of the 21st century, no enemy is met on the battlefield or in cyberspace. On the contrary, your effort is directed at the population of the opponent with the goal of befriending as many people as possible. The intent is to win the hearts and minds, thus neutralize the effort of their government, which you suspect is laboring to alter your way of life.

Having overlooked this aspect of the cyberwar, Snyder failed to understand why the American people were the pushovers that they proved to be. He complained about that situation in this manner: “It is hard to believe that the top Russian leadership thought it could swing the election. Why should the U.S. prove an easier mark than, say, Ukraine, where Russia tried but failed to hack the presidential election in 2014?” Yes indeed, why?

Instead of coming close to answering that question, Snyder went off on a tangent that took him on a journey to nowhere. As a result, he neglected to probe the peculiarities of the American scene in favor of describing what he believes are three schools of thought operating on the Russian scene. This led him to the conclusion that “we are all standing on uncertain ground now; including the Russians … It seems that, in our own age, winning a cyber war can be confusing”.

But what about that earlier question? Why did the Americans succumb so easily to a cyber attack that failed in a place like Ukraine? There can be only one answer to that question. It is that the Americans – both ordinary and elites – have been stripped of the ability to do critical thinking. They were trained to let someone else do the thinking for them, a condition that could have come about as a result of being bombarded with contradictory information day after day around the clock.

Children that grow up in a culture which says you're a no-good anti-semite because you say A instead of B, and you're a no-good anti-semite because you say B instead of A, have the natural common sense they are born with, shredded to pieces and replaced with nothing but vacuum.

By the time these children reach adulthood, they would have developed the kind of logic that cannot differentiate between refraining from mischief-making because it is the right thing to do; and refraining from mischief-making because they might get caught and punished.

And neither will they know how to react to a cyber attack that might inflict serious damage to their country.

Will it be Charlton Heston or Liberace?

The reason why writers sometimes resort to the fantasy genre to describe a real situation is that some situations do approach or even exceed the unreality of the fantasy. The difference between the two, however, is that a real situation would be surrounded by mud and noise that hide its true nature. What the writer does, therefore, is remove the mud and the noise to expose a naked reality resembling the fantasy – usually to a high degree.

This said; let's try to write a fantasy. Imagine a serial rapist that has the entire village up in arms against him. He hires a two-headed lawyer who employs both heads to defend and protect him. One head is dedicated to telling positive things about the activities of the rapist no matter how dishonorable they are. The other head is dedicated to describing the town people as being so evil, there is no telling what they'll do if the lawyer admits that his client did something wrong. This is why the rapist must always be portrayed as being a most perfect model of superlative virtues no matter what he does or to whom he does it.

That was the fantasy. We now switch to the reality of the situation. It is the story of a Jewish establishment that's living in a global village where the Jews are welcomed by one family or another till such time that the family discovers the rape tendencies of the fanatic Jew. In fact, time after time, he proves to be addicted to rape, assaulting the little ones in the family every time he has the chance. Eventually, the Jew was deemed to be an incurable serial rapist, and shunned by everyone.

The two headed lawyer that's taking up the case this time is Jonathan S. Tobin who wrote: “More than Just Another Anti-Israel U.N. Farce,” published on March 17, 2017 in National Review Online. True to form, Tobin begins by throwing an insulting broadside at all of humanity. Here it is: “A new United Nations report libels Israel, promotes hatred, and makes peace even less likely”.

And here is how Tobin chose to portray the rapist: “The difference between [apartheid] South Africa – where a tiny white majority denied all rights to the black majority – and Israel, a Jewish-majority country [is that] the Arab minority has full rights, including suffrage, representation, and equality under the law.” What you see here are the three ingredients with which the most toxic Jewish propaganda is made. But before we get to that, it must be stressed that South Africa remained a black majority country because – unlike the Jews – the whites of the world did not bribe the losers among them to go settle in South Africa and turn the place into a white majority country.

The first toxic ingredient used by Tobin is the deliberate confusion. It is that he makes no distinction between the Arabs who live in what is called “Israel proper,” and the Palestinians who live in the West Bank. This allows him to misrepresent reality, which is the second toxic ingredient. Yes, the Arabs who live in Israel proper have some rights, but as shown in the UN report, they are only a fraction of the rights enjoyed by the Jews. To say that the Palestinians have “full rights” is to tell a blatant lie, which happens to be the third ingredient.

An even bigger lie is that Tobin relies on both the confusion and the misrepresentation he created, to make it sound like the Palestinians who live in the West Bank enjoy the real and fictitious rights enjoyed by the Arabs in Israel proper. But the reality is that the Palestinians have zero rights, living as they do by the rules of a savage military occupation which makes biblical horror stories sound like happy talk.

As to the portrayal of everyone but the Jews being evil, Tobin did it by slandering the Palestinians, disparaging the American authors of the UN report, and slamming the UN for representing a human race he portrays as being incapable of ridding itself of anti-Semitism.

Here is his attack on the Palestinians: “The report's findings will make it harder to persuade the Palestinians to compromise and finally accept the necessity of giving up its war on the Jewish state … the standoff in the West Bank is the result of Palestinian unwillingness to recognize Israel's right to exist within any borders”.

And here is his attack on both the UN and the human race: “The report will provide aid and comfort to those whose anti-Zionist incitement provided a thin veil of legitimacy for the growth of anti-Semitism across the globe”.

It is no secret that Donald Trump likes to project impressive images of America to the world. It can be said that picking Rex Tillerson – who is an imposing man – to manage America's foreign policy, fits that tendency. This being the case, if our story is to be made into a movie, the lead role will have to be played by someone built in the image of Charlton Heston.

The trouble is that physical appearance aside; the people of the world want to see an American approach to foreign policy that matches the masculine ruggedness of Charlton Heston. In other words, they want America to tell Israel that carrying it for seven decades is much too much already.

The world wants Rex Tillerson to admit that the more America protects Israel, the more Israel goes on a rampage, creating more problems that end up in America's lap. To rise to the expectation of the world, Tillerson will have to make the following declaration: This sickening charade ends here and ends now – period.

The world expects to see and hear Tillerson do that, not by whispering words in Netanyahu's ear, but by saying the words loudly in a public forum for everyone to hear. Unless this is done, the image of the man – no matter how impressive he may be physically – will transform in the eyes of all human beings from the rugged look of a Charlton Heston to the soft flamboyant look of a Liberace.

The world is waiting to see which one it will be.

America's Chance to grow-up fast

Two articles published on two consecutive days in The National Interest, show that America has an opportunity to redeem itself and display the kind of maturity that democracies have lacked for at least half a century.

The first article came under the title: “Trump Deserves a Chance to Deal with Russia over Syria,” written by Nikolas K. Gvosdev, and published on March 15, 2017. The second article came under the title: “Syria May Be a No-Win Situation for U.S. Troops,” written by Daniel L. Davis, and published on March 16, 2017.

Nikolas Gvosdev brings up the fact that a suggestion was advanced to the effect that America should collaborate with Russia to bring the tragic situation in Syria to an end. He discusses the pros and cons of the suggestion as advanced by the various debaters, and concludes that it would be a good idea to take up that project. The strongest point he makes in favor of this decision is what happened a decade ago when the Pentagon was opposed to the “surge” in Iraq but was overruled by the President at the time. The surge was implemented he says, and the outcome was a success according to him.

As to Daniel Davis, he expresses the fear that the Trump Administration will not even consult with others on whether or not the United States should get involved in Syria. He says this will probably happen despite the protestations, and will prove disastrous for the United States. The strongest point he makes to support this view is something that's out of his personal experience.

He was in Afghanistan, he says, where he witnessed how bad decisions have led to American lives being lost needlessly, and to soldiers getting wounded while serving no useful purpose. He predicts that the same sad story will again play itself out in Syria, and he urges the Administration to stay out of that war.

The two writers are professionals in their respective fields, and there is nothing I can add or subtract from what they said. This is why my contribution to this debate is done on another level altogether. In fact, my reaction to what is happening at this time emanates from the reality that for half a century, I have been interested in the differences that exist between the various cultures.

The current debate questioning the role that the United States should or should not play in Syria – be it with or apart from Russia – reminds me of a time when those two powers battled each other as they vied to win the hearts and minds of ordinary people around the world during the Cold War.

The machinations surrounding the Cold War drew my attention shortly after the 1967 sneak attack conducted by Israel on Egypt's air force while the planes sat idle on the tarmacs and in the hangars. What happened, to the best of my recollection, was that Egypt's President Nasser was interviewed by a journalist from Britain or from the United States a few months after the occurrence. He was asked why he still maintained close relations with the Soviet Union after the setback that the country had suffered.

To me, Nasser's response highlighted the difference between the mature behavior of the Soviets and the adolescent behavior of the so-called democracies … at least the English speaking ones in North America. Nasser had told the interviewer that when a family in Egypt is hit by a tragedy, friends and neighbors come to it bearing gifts to help repair some of the damage, and ease the pain. The Soviets did this much in the aftermath of our tragedy, said the Egyptian President, and left it at that.

As for me, I could not help but contrast the Soviet behavior with what I was witnessing here in North America. I was seeing journalists of every age treat the event (they called it a war not a battle) as if it were a football game staged for their entertainment. They were too immature to see the tragedy in an occurrence that killed a number of people and scarred many more, perhaps for life.

Those were the developments that started me on an intellectual journey I chose never to abandon. Sad to say that what I see after all these years is a Russia that has grown more mature than ever before. And I see an America that sank deeper into adolescent behavior than ever before.

My interpretation is that the dissolution of the Soviet Union has injected a large dose of maturity into Russia, adding to what was already there. Also, it seems that America being called “sole superpower,” has plunged it deeper into adolescent behavior.

From the cultural standpoint, the way that things will be seen by the rest of the world, a showdown over Syria between the two old rivals will turn America into a big time loser. But if there is going to be cooperation between them, America's decision makers must sear into their brains one command from which they must never deviate. It is this:

“Whatever we say or do, it will have to be in the best interest of the Syrian people. We'll never speak in terms of what's good for America (or worse, for Israel) and we'll never do anything that leads to that impression. On the contrary we'll instantly repudiate the pundits that pretend to speak for the Administration when trying to make it sound like America is out there serving its interests or those of Israel”.

If America does that, it will inject into itself a dose of maturity that could raise it to the Russian level.