This sick Man's Disease flows like a River

Like many of his “dual” compatriots, Daniel Pipes has found a way to make America's taxpayers pay for the high life he leads while serving the interests of Israel.

The way that he serves Israel is by getting acquainted with every character in Israel that's above the level of ordinary pedestrian, and learning all about their thinking. Doing this with every rising star on Israel's list of who's who, Pipes develops the arguments he uses to “educate” the American elites as well as the public on how to sacrifice America's interests to better serve those of Israel.

Thus, you may think of Pipes as being the quintessential Zionist Jew; the heart and soul of the Jewish American establishment. When you hear him speak, you should remain alert to the fact that however extreme his views may sound, he is expressing the mainstream views of the New-York/Tel-Aviv axis of horror that's in charge of designing and executing America's foreign policy.

If you want to know how much horror is packed in the philosophy adhered to by this crowd, recall that Daniel Pipes expressed in writing his delight that the Arabs were killing each other in the Syrian civil war. He made it clear he wished that the combatants would not stop fighting till they exterminated each other completely.

With this in mind, you should now read the article that Daniel Pipes wrote under the title: “Italy's apocalypse” and the subtitle: “As they lose their culture to waves of immigrants, Italians simply deny.” It was published on November 1, 2017 in The Washington Times.

With regard to that title, it was a minister of the Italian government that first used the word apocalypse to describe what's happening demographically in her country as a result of the declining rate of birth. Even though Pipes admits that to remedy the problem, some jurisdictions in Italy “responded by offering cash to induce immigrants to settle there,” he chose to use the word apocalypse – not in the context that was intended by the minister – but to describe what he regards as the nefarious influence the immigrants are exerting on the culture and quality of life in Italy.

The author used several paragraphs to elaborate on those points and then, true to form, the man who expressed delight that the Arabs were killing each other in the Syrian civil war, ended his article like this: “What will it take for the Italians to wake up and begin to deal with the civilizational catastrophe facing their uniquely attractive culture? My guess: A major jihadi attack in Rome.” No, that's not his guess; it is his wish. This man, Daniel Pipes, is so sick, if his disease were made of water, it would flow like a raging river.

But how can someone be like that? Well, to answer that question, we look at the way that the author elaborates on the subject; doing what he and his likes describe as connecting the dots. He first observes that Muslims ruled Sicily – which is a Southern Italian island – for five centuries but are out of there now. So, Daniel Pipes reckons that the Muslims will want it back. It is his hunch; one of the dots to connect.

For this reason, and because Rome is the seat of the Catholic Church, the Muslims will most likely commit a violent jihadi act in that city, he says. That would be another hunch and a new dot to connect. But we must ask: could this be what motivated Pipes to end his article by wishing that the jihadis would do just that? Did Pipes believe that a violent act will wake up the people of Italy who will get on with the business of making babies, thus alleviate the country's demographic deficiency? What a sick sense of humor!

Still, until this happens, if it ever does, Daniel Pipes remains pessimistic about Italy because he says that when you combine the Muslim designs for the country with the demographic apocalypse it is facing, you end up with “a civilizational crisis in Italy”.

To illustrate his point, he describes what he calls a vignette he witnessed while visiting Italy. It goes like this: “A statue is surrounded by four benches. Seven elderly Italian women squeeze onto one bench while eight African men spread out on the other three benches”.

And the lesson he draws is that: “This scene summed up both mutual distaste and the migrants' abundant sense of superiority,” whatever that means.

Daniel Pipes does not tell what dots he sees in that scene or how they connect with the other dots. But perhaps the next thing he ought to do, is explain how the Americas and Australia, not only survived the onslaught of the huddle masses, but thrived because of it.