Desperate diseases require desperate remedies

 A French saying goes like this: “Aux grands maux les grands remèdes,” which translates into: Desperate diseases require desperate remedies.

 

In real life, someone can suddenly fall desperately ill, in which case he would require the administration of desperate remedies. But the saying was never meant to be used literally; it was meant to be used metaphorically. That is, it was meant to be used in the following sort of context: Entrenched societal ills require extraordinary remedial pushbacks.

 

Because a society does not suddenly become plagued with illness, it does not immediately require extraordinary pushback. What happens instead is that the illness begins as a small annoyance, and tends to keep growing as long as it is not cured. If it does not respond to early moderate remedies, it is steadily subjected to more desperate remedies.

 

Unfortunately, the human race has shown a propensity to develop societal ills that refuse to respond to remedies. This leads to violence such as momentary armed skirmishes or drawn out wars. Almost every group on Planet Earth has been involved in a small conflict or a big war at one time or another. But there is one group to whom conflicts and wars are like second nature. These are the Jews.

 

Four thousand years ago the Jews were a collection of desert-roaming tribes that missed the boat when it came to developing into a sedentary society, a prerequisite to developing into a strong culture or civilization. Yet, surrounded by magnificent civilizations and wanting to have one of their own, the Jews knew they could not start one from scratch, thus set their eyes on stealing Palestine, a very productive but defenseless society. The Jews attacked it and stole the land, but were themselves attacked and kicked out of there by the Romans. They became wanderers once more, but this time, wandered all over the world, not just the desert.

 

Having invented a fairytale to legitimize their stealing of Palestine in the first place, the Jewish leaders, known as rabbis, revived the tale to keep “the flock” under their control. The essence of the tale was that for some unknown reason, God chose the Jews to be his favorite children. He gave them Palestine as an early token with the promise to give them the Earth when he’ll return as a messiah at a later date.

 

It is that belief which made the Jews who and what they are today. No matter how much you explain to them how obnoxious their behavior feels and looks like, it is your word against that of a God who told them differently in their view. They continue to be who they are even when faced with the specter of a new holocaust growling with hunger for Jewish souls to consume.

 

Being familiar with all that background will help the reader understand the otherwise incomprehensible stance taken by Alan M. Dershowitz who wrote: “Should the Late Bishop Tutu Get a Statue?” an article that was published on December 28, 2021 on the website of the Gatestone Institute.

 

You see in the first paragraph of that article why it is that the Jews are having a difficult time staying inside the human fold. It is that they pit themselves against all of humanity. In fact, speaking about Bishop Tutu, here is what Dershowitz is saying: “He was among the world’s most respected figures … But it [his grin] masks ugly hatred toward the Jewish people, religion and state.” Right there, the point is made that it is the Jews versus the whole world.

 

In fact, it did not take Alan Dershowitz long before he insinuated that human beings huddle together on one side of the divide, whereas the Jews huddle on the other side with each other and with a God who wants no one but them, his favorite children. Given this arrangement, and the fact that the Bishop saw a close resemblance between the struggle of his people against apartheid, and what the Palestinians are suffering under the apartheid inflicted on them by the Jews — it is not too difficult to see why Bishop Tutu has expressed the sentiment that he did.

 

More ominous than this, is the fact that the gap between the human race and the Jews is so wide, it is impossible to see how it can be bridged. How can you look at a 1,400-word vicious diatribe designed to diminish a man whose heart bleeds for a people living under a savage regime for generations, and not conclude that humans are humans, Jews are Jews and the twain shall never meet? 

 

If you want to understand what the Jews yearn for, look at the physical set-up they have arranged in occupied Palestine. You’ll see a creepy resemblance between the way they treat the Palestinians in their own country, and the way they treat all of us generally. You’ll realize that they yearn to treat each of us like Palestinians in our own countries. Thus, they nudge the Americans to enforce a system of global apartheid that makes them a privileged lot, and makes the rest of us, including the American people, second class citizens of the world.

 

That is, in Palestine the Jews want maximum security for themselves guaranteed by a military that’s equipped with the most advanced weapons America gives them free of charge. And they want a totally disarmed and vulnerable Palestinian population they can push around without experiencing the slightest pushback from it or the international community.

 

Similarly, they want a world population to which they can dictate how it must live, educate its children and address the Jews. And they want a world population that will not dare tell them enough is enough, you’ve exceeded every limit of tolerance … it is time for you to get used getting kicked in the ass.

Neocon says American slavery deified the world

We are often reminded that if we live long enough we get to see some very strange things. Well, I have lived long enough, and I am seeing some very strange things.

 

One of those things is neocon Clifford D. May praising the work of neocon Andrew Roberts for saying that America rid the world of slavery by adopting slavery and then abolishing it. He added that America did so, not by staging a revolution but by doing … yes, Andrew, by doing what? He is not sure what, but the one thing he is absolutely sure about is that the American Revolution had nothing to do with slavery, and everything to do with the need to feel independent of a king who might have been certified as mentally ill, but was otherwise a sweet fellow who did not worry much about having his dictatorial powers curtailed.

 

To contribute his two-cents worth to the debate now raging in America about the New York Times assertion (the 1619 Project) that the United States came to be, not in the late 18th century, but the early 17th century when slaves were first brought to America — Clifford May latched on to the ideas of Andrew Roberts whom he praised by sticking the following paragraph at the end of his column:

 

“If, as has been said, the past is a foreign country, no one is more skilled to guide us through that distant land than Andrew Roberts. His services are especially valuable now, a time when propagandists pushing an illiberal and anti-American ideology are leading us toward a dystopian future”.

 

But who really is this fellow Andrew Roberts? Briefly, here is what’s known about him:

 

Andrew Roberts wants to unite the English speaking nations. A staunch supporter of all neocon viewpoints, he applauded George W. Bush for attacking al-Qaeda. He supported the invasion of Iraq, arguing that it was consistent with the Pax Americana principles. When no WMD were found in that country, he still defended the invasion. He also defended every war crime and crime against humanity committed by the British. He defended the British torture of the Kenyan Mau Mau combatants as well as the civilians. He supported the Amritsar massacres in India. He even approved of the internment of the Irish in the North of Ireland. And he associated with the exiled White South Africans who worked to recolonize and civilize the “uncivilized” native Africans.

 

So, this is the guy who is now asking: American slavery? What American slavery? If anything, America committed unprecedented spiritual acts by taking slaves in order to free them and show the world how it can be done. This being the case, Clifford May has embraced the idea and built on it.

 

What the man did is very much in the Jewish style of screwing himself up (not just shooting himself in the foot this time) by trying to score in a big way, but seeing the futile attempt backfire on him in no small way. Here is how he did that. First, Clifford May legitimized the Andrew Roberts revision of history like this: “Science is never settled. History is never settled either. No one has done more to establish that than Andrew Roberts, the great British historian”.

 

And then, in a bizarre twist even for Jewish logic, Clifford May accused the New York Times of revising history when in fact, the New York Times did nothing of the sort. Look and marvel at the way that the mind of a Jewish lawyer contorts itself into a pretzel. Here is what Clifford May did. First, he asked a question: If history is always open to revision, why the outrage over the 1619 Project? He then answered it like this: The 1619 Project is not based on serious research or new evidence.

 

What on Earth is he talking about, mentioning serious research and new evidence? You do research and try to unearth new evidence when there is a dispute about the facts. But nobody is disputing the fact that the first slaves were brought to America in 1619 or that America’s Independence was declared in 1776. Rather, the dispute is about the way that today’s rolling of life in America, is perceived to have been influenced by either or both these two events.

 

Andrew Roberts was aware of this reality and its implications. And so, he offered this thought: “If the Founding Fathers were evil, the founding of their country was evil and built upon a lie … No society can survive such an existential belief about itself.” In other words, Roberts is saying that we have a choice to make: Either we admit that America was built on a lie and see it perish, or lie about its founding and see it survive. Obviously, Roberts is clear about which choice he wants Americans to make.

 

As to Clifford May, he has a typical Dershowitz-like observation to make. It goes like this: “You should know that since time immemorial, slavery was a common practice almost everywhere on earth.” In other words, he is saying this: Hey look here; everyone was doing it, why not us?

 

So then, the sum total of what these two neocons are saying is that Americans should lie to themselves, and the school teachers should lie to their students about the founding of the American nation because the country is so fragile, it will disintegrate if the truth became common knowledge.

 

And because to omit that story from the syllabus of American history will create a vacuum, we should fill that vacuum with stories about the Holocaust that happened in Europe. This will make the Jews a more privileged lot, a move that should make us all happy.

 

SEE!? When it comes to serving the Jews, everything is kosher.

The US needs to filter out hurtful Jewish voices

The neocons who are the former liberals that converted to conservatism because—like they say—they were mugged by reality, seem to have been mugged again by the other side of the same reality.

 

According to the neocons, the reality that mugged them the first time was the realization that the conservative system of small government, low taxation, strong defense, private property and laissez-faire economics was superior to whatever the liberals were advocating.

 

While this is the neocons’ official version behind the ideas and events that led to their conversion, the history books of the future will tell a different story. They will say that those who were first to convert from liberalism to conservatism were fanatic Jews steeped in the Marxist-Leninist ideology. They loved this ideology because it advocated a single government for the world, which they believed they could then hijack and make it their own whether the messiah will come to bless the event or prove to be a hoax.

 

However, when the Soviet Union, on which the Jews had pinned their hopes, proved too weak to deliver on their dream, they looked at the conservative system. They saw that it promised as much as did the liberal system—and a little more. In fact, they saw an America and its NATO allies dominating almost everywhere in the world. They salivated, and immediately started a program to conquer an America that itself, had already conquered most of the world. When you have Uncle Sam in your pocket snoring his nostrils off, who needs Uncle Stalin on your shoulder whispering directives in your ear?

 

But then, what did happened that caused the Jews to feel mugged a second time? Did they lose faith in the ability of conservatism to deliver on small government, low taxation, strong defense, private property or laissez-faire economics? No, that’s not it. In fact, saying so was a cover meant to hide the truth about the Jews seeing America as being in a better position than the Soviet Union to help Socialist Israel conquer the Middle East and go from there to conquer the world. Who needs the messiah or Karl Marx when they can have America—Milton Friedman or no Milton Friedman?

 

That’s when reality mugged the Jewish neocons a second time. What happened was that after they completed their takeover of America, America disappointed them by suffering a series of failures. This got the Jews to wish that the messiah would hurry and come down to give them back their old dream.

 

You can read all about this part of the story in an opinion piece that came under the title: “Failure in the Iran nuclear talks,” and the subtitle: “US and Israel are looking for Plan B.” It was written by Abraham Wagner, and published on December 28, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

That piece was published on the indicated date but was written a few hours earlier. Events overtook it, thus made it sound a little outdated. This is why it will be a good idea to read it in conjunction with a news item that was published later that same day, containing new information about the same subject. The news item came under the title: “Iran expects Biden will cave in ‘presumably final round’ of nuclear talks,” written by Joel Gehrke, and published on December 28, 2021 in The Washington Examiner.

 

Once you’ve read the two articles, you’ll be struck by the contrast you’ll have detected in their moods. You’ll sense that Gehrke’s news item is optimistic about the negotiators in Vienna reaching an agreement soon whereas Abraham Wagner’s opinion piece predicts failure to reach an agreement.

 

Here is how Joel Gehrke ended the news item:

 

“Russian Ambassador Mikhail Ulyanov suggested that the two sides would try to move quickly to a breakthrough. He twitted that the participants held businesslike and result-oriented discussions. In particular they agreed to intensify the drafting process in order to achieve an agreement ASAP”.

 

And here is how Abraham Wagner ended his opinion piece:

 

“For now, there is acceptance that there will be no new agreement. Iran may approach or cross the threshold in becoming a nuclear power, and that Plan B may consist of defensive technologies. Added to this will be the need for realistic thinking about deterrence. Without realistic thinking, the Middle East may face a prospect nobody wants”.

 

It looks like the talks in Vienna will soon reveal whose mood was correct. But regardless of the outcome, what is it about Abraham Wagner’s article that should tell the foreign policy officials in Washington what has gone badly for America in the past, and what must be avoided in the future?

 

What made it difficult for America to understand the proverbial “other,” thus wasted every chance it had to solve whatever disputes it had with them, is the polluted ecosystem that pundits such as Abraham Wagner have been creating around the individuals, institutions and countries they turned into enemies of America simply because they were indifferent toward Israel.

 

For example, when in the early 1970s OPEC decided to raise the price of oil, the Jews polluted the debating space in America by describing the situation as if the Arab countries were holding the gun to America’s head, and forcing the oil companies to act as tax collectors in the business of extorting money from the American public and giving it to the Arabs. In no time at all did everyone that mentioned oil, started to speak in those vile terms.

 

This purely Jewish nauseating trick did not bring down the price of oil. It only made it difficult for America to negotiate the subject with the Arabs, and with everyone else in the oil business. In a similar fashion and according to that same mentality, here is what Abraham Wagner is doing now:

 

“Iran has engaged in an extortion effort as a price for entering new talks, demanding the US release of $10 billion of frozen Iranian funds to prove the seriousness of its intentions”.

 

Imagine the American negotiators sitting at the table in Vienna, hearing Wagner’s voice echo in their heads: These Iranians are trying to extort from America the money that is theirs. But theirs or not theirs, how dare they do such a thing?

 

Now, think about it seriously, my friend: How will the Americans—under these conditions—speak to negotiate with the Iranians, in the presence of the other European and Asian delegates, without spurting out their mouths the stinky Jewish crap?

Archbishop Desmond Tutu doing good even now

Let’s do a thought experiment. You live in a house, and you have two neighbors, each living in his house. Watching them over the years, you notice that they commit the same violations of the town bylaws such as the use of banned chemicals on their lawns, and the alteration to their houses without first submitting a plan to the town and getting the appropriate permits.

 

Unhappy with what you see, you confront both neighbors — first, you confront one and then the other. You talk to the first gently, explaining that what he is doing is dangerous not only to others in the neighborhood, but also to himself and his family. And you hope that your message will move him enough to change his behavior.

 

As to the way you talk to the other neighbor, it seems there is more to what you’re saying than the words would indicate. For example, when talking about his behavior, you don’t tell him that what he’s doing is dangerous to himself, his family and others; you tell him that what he’s doing is criminal, and will cause people to die sooner or later.

 

What do we make of that? Why would you look at two similar acts but weigh them differently just because they were committed by two different people? Could it be that you saw something in the second neighbor that reminded you of someone you knew before, who was so evil, he caused the death of others due to carelessness — and then did not show remorse for the damage he has caused?

 

While we can think and guess what has motivated you to feel the way you do, we can never be sure what it is. But because you’re not the object of our inquiry, we don’t spend much time probing into your motivations. What we do instead is take your stance as a signal that something is seriously wrong with the second neighbor and so, we zero in on his behavior.

 

This analogy will help us decipher a number of issues brought to light by an article that came under the title: “Archbishop Tutu and the disturbing power of intersectionality,” and the subtitle: “South Africa’s struggle was nothing like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but the anti-apartheid leader’s bias showed how easily people can be led astray by such myths.” The article was written by Jonatan S. Tobin, and published on December 27, 2021 in Jewish News Syndicate.

 

The second neighbor in this analogy is the collective Jew that the self-appointed leaders of the Zionist movement claim to represent and protect. Jonathan S. Tobin is one such appointee who took on Archbishop Tutu and tried to discredit him by refuting the pronouncements that the latter made regarding Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. We leave it to history to decide where the archbishop ranks in the pantheon of the people who dedicated their lives to fighting for the freedom of those who are so crushed under the boots of their oppressors, they cannot fight for themselves. Instead, we probe in what Jonathan Tobin, representing the collective Jew, is trying to communicate.

 

Here is a passage in Tobin’s article that looks like a treasure trove that’s promising to yield a wealth of information about his purpose, therefore the purpose of the collective Jew. Speaking of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, here is what Jonathan Tobin wrote:

 

“There is no excuse for his confusing his own experiences with the cause of a Palestinian national movement whose identity is inextricably tied up with a war to eradicate Israel, and not a struggle for justice. In doing so, he sided with hate and intolerance”.

 

When someone accuses you of being at war with him, he admits he is at war with you, having failed to prove that you’re at war with him. Thus, you’re accused of something that was not proven, by someone who admits he is doing to you what he accuses you of. This is how Jonathan Tobin has cracked the case open for us to decipher what goes on inside his head and the heads of all self-appointed Jewish leaders. So, let’s probe and decipher this valuable gift.

 

Jonathan Tobin said that the Palestinians are inextricably tied up with a war to eradicate Israel. This is his admission that the Jews are inextricably tied up with a war to eradicate Palestine and the Palestinian people. In fact, all the evidence has been pointing in that direction despite the official denials that Tobin has now inadvertently admitted to.

 

So now that we have Tobin’s permission to describe what we see as we see it, we can safely relate the observation that the racist regime of the Afrikaners did not go as far as build a wall around South Africa’s South Western Townships (Soweto) whereas the supremacist regime of Israel did so around the West Bank of Palestine. And we conclude that the inhumanity exhibited by the Jewish Zionists, is more grotesque by a few notches than the inhumanity that the Afrikaners ever exhibited.

 

Of course, there is more to be said about this subject, but it will have to wait for another time. For now, there is a burning question that cries out to be answered. It is this: Is it true that the Jews are superior to the rest of us, or is it Jewish BS designed to hide the inferiority that has made them the eternal losers they have shown to be over the last 4000 years? To answer this question, we look at a revealing passage in the Tobin article. It reads as follows:

 

“Tutu also demanded that Jews forgive the Nazis for the Holocaust. Yet, he never seemed capable of forgiving Jews for what he described as oppressing Palestinians”.

 

The concept of forgiveness is a characteristic of the human species; no other species can be associated with it in any way. The flip side of this reality is that the humans who miss out on the true meaning of forgiveness, show that their humanity has been diminished by the inferiority of their culture. This is what Tobin is revealing about himself and those of his ilk. Here is why:

 

You forgive someone that has done wrong. That is, you forgive and forget. What you do not do is forgive someone that is in the process of doing something wrong because if you do this, you tell the wrongdoer that you enjoy what he is doing, thus encourage him to double down on his crime.

 

Imagine what would have happened if the young victims of the Epsteins and the Weinsteins told them they were forgiven while the rapes were ongoing. Imagine what would have happened if Archbishop Tutu had told the Jews they were forgiven for their ongoing rape of Palestine.

 

Do you have the brains to imagine a concept as advanced as this, Jonathan?

As if a foreign foe, they seek regime change in Academe

Every time that fanatic Jewish pundits of the mob tackle a serious issue, they add to the evidence that they see the world, not as divided into nations, but divided into a couple of columns. One column comes under the rubric: “Those With Us;” the other comes under the rubric: “Those Against Us”.

 

Those whom the Jews consider to be their friends as well as friends of Israel, are the individuals, institutions and political jurisdictions that lie for them and for Israel to help them get out of trouble. For example, when people see the apartheid wall, they call it what it is, an observation that causes the fanatics to blow their entrails out of their bellies howling: antisemitism, antisemitism.

 

To defend their position, the fanatic Jews argue that the wall has nothing to do with keeping apart the inhabitants who reside on the west side of the wall from those who reside on the east side. They further explain that the wall was built to prevent combatants from the east to cross into the west and continue their struggle by committing violent acts when they deem it necessary. But little do the fanatic Jews realize that they just proved the point made by the observers who see the wall as that of apartheid.

 

It is that the movement of people has now become a one-way traffic. The flow is permitted from west to east, and banned from east to west. And so, whereas Palestinian combatants can no longer fight their Jewish counterparts in the West, the armed-to-the-teeth Jewish settlers cross into the East where they kill Palestinians, blow up their homes, ravage their fields, and steal the lands on which they build new settlements to house new Jewish marauders imported from everywhere around the globe. That’s not simple apartheid; it is apartheid on steroids.

 

Still the two columns that make up the Jewish map of the world, remain unchanged in the sense that the observers who describe what they see the way they see it, remain in the column under the rubric, “Those Against US.” Also, those who disregard what they see or worse, lie about it to protect Israel and the Jews, remain in the column under the rubric, “Those With Us”.

 

There was a time when the American system of education in general, but more so the colleges and universities, used to be listed in the column that says, “Those With Us”. But as Israel began to show its demonic side, the professors who are a highly educated bunch, refused to be hypnotized by the Jewish propaganda machine, thus began to describe what they see as they see it. And so, the fanatic Jews moved them to the column that says, “Those Against US”.

 

Events of this kind marked the start of the Jewish war on America’s system of higher education. This made it so that the Jewish appetite to go after the entire system, grew steadily and now encompasses the kindergartens, the graduate schools and everything in-between. But while the Jewish hunger to control that system keeps growing, the system keeps asserting its independence. The result has been that the Jews constantly shift the strategy of the wars they keep launching against the system.

 

The Jews began by attacking the untenured professors. Then, they went after the tenured professors. Then, they went after the head of faculties in charges of courses that used to treat the Arab and Muslim countries with fairness and without prejudice. Then, the Jews went after the counselors who look after the needs of students. Then they went after the student organizations that would not toe the Jewish line. And now, they are going after the staff in charge of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).

 

Their latest war cry came in the form of an article under a title that reads: “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Result in Anti-Semitism,” written by Eileen F. Toplansky, and published on December 26, 2021 in The American Thinker.

 

The following is a condensed version of what Toplansky wrote:

 

“In a recent Heritage Foundation Report titled ‘Inclusion Delusion: The Anti-Semitism of Diversity, Equity, and inclusion Staff at Universities,’ the reader learns that university DEI staff are better understood as political activists with a narrow and often radical political agenda. Rather than promoting diversity and inclusion, universities may be contributing to an increase in anti-Jewish hatred by expanding DEI staff and power. Unsurprising,  DEI staff engage in standard anti-Israel sentiment with the use of the word ‘apartheid.’ How comfortable DEI organizations are with Critical Race Theory sheds enormous light on the trajectory of their biases. And they are not confining themselves to colleges. A public school system in Michigan spent 21 days teaching adults to be good allies, with a call for them to join a Black Lives Matter political protest. At a recent Rutgers webinar, lies about Israel and Jews abounded as Middle East studies professors engaged in unbridled hatred. In actuality, campus anti-Semitism… stems from woke black activism”.

 

Clearly then, the Jews have academia in the column that says, “Those Against US” alongside the countries they consider to be so hostile to them and to Israel, they must attack them, destroy them and force them to undergo the kind of regime change that will vanish the naughty professors, the wicked heads of faculties, the student organizations and those in charge of DEI.

 

It so happened that while in Montreal some quarter of a century ago, I wrote things that displeased the Jews enormously in a local Arabic newspaper. The Jews called my publisher and asked that I be made available for a radio interview. I accepted the invitation, they called me at home, and we did the interview by telephone.

 

At some point, I found it necessary to draw attention to the fact that every day in that period of time, the Jews would be seen or heard throughout the media outlets, blaming someone new for the misery they were inflicting on themselves. It came down to me saying something like: Day after day they blame the Protocol of the Elders of Zion, the Christians, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Africans, the Muslims, the Russians … and that’s when the interviewer screamed to cut me off. Too bad he did because I was going to warn that the Jews will end up making enemies out of the whole world.

 

And you know what, my friend? That’s exactly what happened; the Jews made enemies out of the whole world.

 

But now that there is no one to cut me off, let me warn that if the Jews continue on their current trajectory, they will make enemies out of every institution in America, including the Federal and State legislatures.

 

Where will they be when this happens? Where will Israel be?

Censorship is one thing, cloture another

Free speech being the hallmark of democracy, is a good thing even if it displays negative side effects from time to time. But like John Dewey put it, “the solution to the ills of democracy is more democracy.” However, that too is considered far from absolute because, like the saying goes: “You cannot shout fire in a crowded theater,” which would constitutes a flagrant abuse of the right to free speech.

 

So, the question to ask is this: Has there been agreement as to how far speech can go before it crosses the line into the realm of abuse? That would be abuse in the sense of a speech being redundant, gratuitous and unnecessary. The answer to the question is no, there has not been such agreement. And this gives every individual and every institution the right to decide for themselves where to draw the line.

 

The French Parliament long ago gave the speaker of the legislative assembly the right to invoke “cloture,” which means end the debate on a given subject when he decides that any addition to what has been said will be redundant, gratuitous and a waste of time. Nothing has changed since that time, and the practice of free speech remains a free for all exercise.

 

The situation in America, and by extension the English speaking world, with regard to the subject of free speech, has reached the boiling point. That’s because all of a sudden, freedom of expression in all of its forms, has become a matter of serious contention between the various parties, both in local politics and on the international stage.

 

The conflation of free speech and human rights, has given the group of countries calling themselves, “free world,” a tool to intimidate the others, and a weapon to harm them. The others did not respond as long as they were weak economically and militarily. But when those among them, such as China and Russia, grew to become superpowers, they started pushing back against America whom they viewed as a bully.

 

Add to all this, the influence which the Jews have on America’s domestic politics as well as its conduct on the international stage, and you’ll begin to understand why America is playing a losing game using swords of the double-edged kind.

 

Two articles, published recently shed much light on what’s going on in that multi-sided duel. One article came under the title: “ Evangelical Contempt for Jewish Life in Israel Must Be Confronted,” written by Dexter Van Zile, and published on December 20, 2021 in Algemeiner.

 

The other article came under the title: “The Tyranny of the Woke,” and the subtitle: “’Thought Police’ have cancelled speakers on campus. Students even cancel themselves over fear of arousing the angry mob. And as is so often the case, the first victims of this particular form of tyranny are the Jews.” It was written by Sarah N. Stern, and published on December 23, 2021 in Jewish News Syndicate.

 

The Dexter Van Zile article demonstrates how the control of the masses with the use of religion, is a double-edged sword. It was the Republican Party cozying to the leaders of the Evangelical movement that helped elect George W. Bush to the presidency of the United States. Once the W stepped into the White House, he flashed his true colors and came to be known, to the chagrin of his family and many others, as the first Jewish President of America.

 

But then, look what the research of Dexter Van Zile has unearthed. “Scholars,” says Van Zile, yes scholars of the Evangelical movement were seized with a crisis of conscience for the colossal error of judgment they committed when they encouraged armed Jewish marauders from around the world to go to Palestine at the expense of America’s taxpayers, and rob the indigenous Palestinians of the homeland that had been theirs since the beginning of time. Never before had the two edges of a sword been so sharp at slashing one side of the story then slashing the other side of the same story.

 

The Evangelical scholars were not the only ones to feel stabbed in the heart by the imposters who claim to be Hebrew inheritors of Palestine because they chose to convert to Judaism instead of Buddhism, for example, or any other religion … which they could have just as dishonorably.

 

Horrified by what the Jews have grabbed when first given a finger, the entire American population seems to have gone up in arms as evidenced by what happens in the social media and the campuses of higher learning. That’s where the Jewish organizations are having a devil of a time trying to monopolize free speech while suppressing that of others.

 

This is the part of the story that’s told by Sarah Stern in her article. What follows is the most pertinent part of her argument, shown here in condensed form:

 

“Today, campuses throughout the country are proliferated by swastikas and where the freedom of speech and assembly of students with a pro-Israel perspective are suppressed. Take, for example, what happened recently at Duke University when the student group supporting Israel was the one organization denied recognition by its student government. Its attempts to educate other student groups were drowned out by the loud, cacophonous voices of the woke”.

 

What this passage shows is that despite what the fake polls are showing, the overwhelming majority of the American people woke up to the reality that their political leaders have been prostituting themselves and the country to a handful of Jewish hypnotists who now fight to subdue academia, the last bastion of freedom in America.

 

The non-Jewish students who saw the Jews monopolize the lecturer’s platform for half a century, are saying to the Jews: You’ve been here for too long already and so, it is cloture time for you guys.

 

Move over because it is someone else’s turn to make the other side of the case.

They exaggerate the form to contrive a content

 What’s the difference between the form and the content of a case?

 

When you make a case for something to an audience, you find yourself dealing with two aspects of the case.

 

There is the principle, which is when you tell the audience what the case is about. It would be the content of the case, something that’s inherent of it.

 

But you also wrap and present the case in the manner that you choose so as to communicate it as effectively as you can. This would be the form that you use to present the case.

 

The audience gets a package from you. It is the unmistakable message that is the content of the case. But it is also the style of presentation that can be one of two things:

 

The package can be fashioned in a manner that is so clear, it does not interfere with the content. Or the package can be so fashioned as to conflate with the content, thus make it so that the form you use to communicate, becomes part of the message if not the entire message.

 

If you had a strong message as content to begin with, it will only be distorted. But if the content was weak to begin with, the form becomes your entire message.

 

Since the form needs a medium to be transmitted, such as a letter, a newspaper or an audio-visual outlet, that medium becomes the message. Such things do happen at times, as shown by Marshall McLuhan.

 

Nowhere can you see how this plays out in real life than in the way the Jews have been milking the story of the Holocaust, turning an industrial scale horror into an industrial scale perpetual embezzlement.

 

Horror stories have happened repeatedly throughout history. They flared up, lived their lives and were relegated to the history books where they occupied a dignified place. In some cases reparations were made; in most cases, they were not.

 

When it came to the Jews, who wanted to make of the Holocaust a wellspring of easy money for themselves, they discovered that unless the Holocaust was made to occupy a prominent place in the everyday life of the public, it will be relegated to history and treated like any other event. This will make it so that to claim compensation will conjure up a derisive laughter and nothing else. For this reason, the Jews invented an approach to keep the story of the Holocaust alive and kicking at all time. It is an approach that relies mightily on the form, and little on the content. That’s because in this case, the content is so thin, the mention of it summons nothing more polite than a scornful shrug.

 

You can see how all of that was put to use in an article that came under the title: “Cable television can help curb antisemitism,” written by Sacha Roytman Dratwa and Russell F. Robinson, and published on December 24, 2021 in the Washington Examiner.

 

As you can see, the first paragraph of that article consists of laying out the wrapping material that will make up the form inside of which the argument will sit. What’s avoided is a discussion of the content, which would be to tell why things are the way they are. What you have instead, is the rattling of statistics that become the core of the discussion, thus contrive a message that’s empty of substance. Here is a shortened version of that paragraph:

 

“The American Jewish Committee (AJC) released the survey of Jewish Americans and the US general public on the issue of antisemitism in America. The results were alarming. The AJC found that 9 out of 10 Jews believe antisemitism is spreading in the United States and 8 in 10 believe antisemitism has increased in the last five years. One in every 4 Jews (24%) has been a victim of antisemitism over the past year”.

 

Sacha Dratwa and Russell Robinson used two more paragraphs to rattle off yet more statistics. And then, they did something sly. Aware of previous statistics to the effect that the more that people are exposed to stories about the Holocaust, the more they display signs of antisemitism — the writers reversed the message of that reality by hiding it and by offering what follows in its stead:

 

“Members of the general public who said they know someone Jewish were aware of antisemitism, familiar with its various forms, and likely to view it as a problem to be addressed. Simply put, exposure and education about Jews and Jewish culture can serve as an antidote to the scourge of hate and bigotry”.

 

What’s that about? It’s about a reality that is prevalent in the republics of extreme dictatorship. The dictators come to believe that by having their pictures hanging everywhere, and having the media talk about them constantly, they will be loved. Similarly, the Jewish leaders came to believe that the collective Jew will be loved and privileged if he is made ubiquitous and standing prominently at the center of the public’s everyday life.

 

When this proved to be a false assumption, the horrified Jewish leaders reasoned that if the media and the governments will start treating the Jews the same as everyone else, everyone will treat the Jews as they do each other. Antisemitism will disappear and so will the wellspring of easy money for the Jews. And this will be worse than calamitous, the way they see things.

 

This is why Dratwa and Robinson came up with the sly trick discussed earlier.

 

Now, the Jews are scheming to take over the system of education as well as the cable companies which are influenced by the voice of the people who themselves control the social media more so than do the governments or the Jewish organizations.

 

Let it be known that Sacha Dratwa and Russell Robinson started the long march to monopolize the schools and the cable companies. The bet is that they will not relent till they hit a brick wall and get hurt before trying something else.

Friends on Good Friday, enemies at Christmas

 Living, working and studying in the tight-knit Anglo-Jewish neighborhood in French-speaking Montreal for nearly two decades, I saw human behavior that was so bizarre, it reminded me of video clips that showed animals of different species develop unexpected relationships between them, such as cats and dogs getting along as good friends, for example.

 

So, how about the one I did not see happen in real life, but could easily have imagined given the strange relationships I saw develop and dissolve between devout Christians and fanatic Jews? Here is one scene that could easily have been produced in my imagination: A cat plays mother to a newly hatched duck for a few days and then eats it.

 

What I saw in Montreal were not cannibalistic scenes of Christians and Jews eating each other, but scenes that were so extreme, they suggested that the actors could live on hate alone, nourished as they were by the power of revulsion produced with the force of their passion.

 

The people acted lovey-dovey when facing each other, using words and gestures that projected a friendship based on the appreciation and admiration they had for each other when in reality, it was fear of the other that motivated them to put on such phony scenes. You would sense the extent of their phoniness when you saw them apart from each other, and witness them spew venom about the other in quantities that could fill the Grand Canyon.

 

It would have been nearly impossible at that time to convince anyone in Montreal or elsewhere that the love they were seeing envelop the two characters, was as real as a mirage produced in the desert on a hot Summer day. Well, my friend, that was then but things are different today because the truth about the loathing these two have for each other is getting harder to hide.

 

You’ll know why things are different today when you read the article that came under the title: “A Christmas crusade: scapegoating the Jews,” and the subtitle: “Anyone connected to reality would be perplexed by church leaders’ campaign to blame Israeli Jews for driving Christians out of Israel, as the country’s Christian population actually increased last year.” The article was written by Melanie Phillips and published on December 23, 2021 in Jewish News Syndicate.

 

The story is of the kind that would be circulated sotto voce because it criticized Israel at a time when doing so was a sacrilege that called for the immediate cancelation of the offender. But things are different now thanks to an internet that has allowed amateurs to act more professionally than the highly paid professionals who would rather kiss a rear-end than be kissed goodbye and be out of a job.

 

The truth is that the Jews are not only ethnic cleansing the country of Palestine which they stole lock, stock and barrel from its indigenous population, they have also been working on erasing the country’s Christian heritage by among other things, chasing away Christians of every ethnicity. They do so by physically attacking Christians, vandalizing their buildings and desecrating their monuments.

 

What was kept under wraps previously is now said openly by the priests, thus forcing the Jews of Israel and their mouthpieces in America to come out of their hiding places and howl their distress in unison. Rather than react the way that normal thieves do, which is to explain why they behaved the way they did, and ask for understanding as well as forgiveness, the Jews of Israel and their Anglo-American mouthpieces acted in the uniquely Jewish fashion of the Jew who insults the victim he just robbed. This is the mentality that Melanie Phillips contributed to the Jewish howling meant to respond to the complaints expressed by Christian leaders of the various churches in Jerusalem.

 

What is noteworthy about what Melanie Phillips did, is that she couched the latest verbal flare-up in the language of mutual hatred that has characterized the Christian-Jewish split over the past 2000 years. Here are examples of the language that she used:

 

“Christian churches mark Christmas 2021 by scapegoating the Jews. A preposterous campaign was mounted by church leaders to blame Israeli Jews for driving Christians out of Israel. This campaign is grotesque. More disturbing, as noted by Marie van der Zyl, was the archbishops’ reference to the Christmas story taking place against the backdrop of a genocide of infants. ‘I found this reference troubling, she wrote, ‘because of the linkage which could be made between Christianity, Jews and the killing of children in any current context.’ It’s more than just troubling. Not only does it slyly reinforce the blood libel that the IDF willfully slaughters Palestinian children, it continues to tap into the calumny of replacement theology, which has been revived within the church. This doctrine, responsible for the Christian pogroms against the Jews of Europe, held that the Christians had replaced the Jews in the eyes of God while the Jews had become the party of the devil. Today, this doctrine has been endorsed by many Western churches, claiming that the Palestinians have inherited the divine promise of the land of Israel. This has created absurdities and obscenities. The churches chose to scapegoat the Jews for crimes against Christianity, the myth fueling Christian antisemitism. Many are horrified by the venom of the churches towards Israel and the resurgence of theological Christian Jew-hatred. Little has changed for the church in its malice towards the Jewish people”.

 

That hate surfaces at Christmas time as noted by Melanie Phillips, and it is no accident. It is that before the Jews embraced what is a joyful season for the Christians, they used to treat as a calamity the birth of the “bastard” Jesus to the “whore” that was his mother. It was a calamity, said the Jews, because the misery that birth brought to them happened on that day.

 

But while Christmas was a day of mourning for the Jews, Good Friday was truly a good day for them because on that day, they would have wanted to be on location centuries ago, hammering the crown of thorns into the head of Jesus.

 

They would have danced in the street, even kissed a Christian.

They all talk democracy but never define it

If you begin with the notion that every happening is an effect that had a cause triggering it, you’ll conclude that Democracy must have been triggered by something. What could it be?

 

You look at all the possibilities and assign to each a probability of being the cause. This leads to the conclusion that there came a time when a good chunk of the population in a society that was ruled by a tyrant, rose up and demanded a change in how it was governed.

 

The idea that the people are subjects whose role is to serve the ruling class was discarded and replaced by the idea that the people should elect the representatives who will serve them as stipulated by them. Thus Democracy was born as an idea. What was left to do was devise the mechanics by which Democracy could be implemented. But in so doing, the mechanics gradually overwhelmed the idea itself, and came to define Democracy. With the passage of time, the idea of the people telling their elected representatives how to govern, died an ignominious death.

 

So the question to ask is this: How does the mechanics of implementing Democracy define the word? To understand the forces that led to this development, and answer the question, we need to look at the period that spanned the time between the end of the Feudal System and the start of the Industrial Revolution. This was a time when craftsmanship of all kinds had so proliferated and so matured, craftsmen in all fields of endeavor ran their own businesses as proud sovereigns who controlled their own destinies being their own bosses.

 

Unfortunately for them, however, the invention of the steam engine brought the Industrial Revolution that outperformed them by making better products and selling them at a cheaper price. The craftsmen closed shop and were forced to work for the industrialists who treated their workers more harshly than did the feudal lords of the preceding era. This caused a revolt that was originally directed at the Lords of Industry, but when it became apparent that the governing bodies at all levels were in cahoots with the industrialists, the revolt intensified and became a full blown revolution.

 

This is when those in charge of the nation decided that the way to mollify the revolution was to give the masses the opportunity to participate in the way they were governed. To implement Democracy, these people who did not think of equality the way we do today, allowed some people but not others to vote and elect the candidates that impressed them the most. In time, one group after another of those deprived of the franchise to vote, protested and demanded that they be given that right. It took some time for this to happen, but universal suffrage eventually became the norm.

 

At that time, the mechanics of implementing Democracy was simple and straight forward. But for various reasons, powerful people disliked the idea of “one man one vote.” Because they could not abolish it, they invented all kinds of ways to suppress the vote of one group or another. One scheme involved the tailor-designing of the voting districts (known as gerrymandering) to make it so that the candidates chose who will elect them instead of the electors deciding who to elect. When you add this to the reality that money has become the lifeblood of political campaigns, you understand how the mechanics of the electoral process came to define Democracy. On the surface, it looks like the idea of Democracy still allows the people to govern themselves. But in reality, the voice of the people has no more sway than the town crier who runs around warning that: the end is near, the end is near.

 

You don’t need a town crier to tell you that the nations first to implement Democracy, have reached a high level of distortion in their implementation of the Democratic ideal. Meanwhile the nations that sat and watched the show while working on plans to industrialize themselves, have finally decided that they need to implement some form of Democracy in their jurisdictions before events will force them to adopt the one that became so decrepit, it will harm them if they were to import it and use it.

 

Seeing no successful model they can copy in their jurisdictions, those nations had no choice but to improvise and tweak their way to a model that will work for them. Because the goal is to give the people a say in how they are governed, which is what the rulers aim for, they insist that the system must be called a Democracy no matter what others think of it.

 

This brings us to the article that came under the title: “Biden’s weak defense of democracy,” and the subtitle: “It leaves a lot to be desired.” It was written by Clifford D. May, and published on December 22, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

The writer made the correct observation to the effect that no one at this time is trying to define Democracy. He did not say why this is the case, and neither does his article give any hint. But Clifford May wrote a very pessimistic article about the state of what he still regards as being a Democratic system of government.

 

And this is what should cause fair-minded observers to puzzle as to why Clifford May is refusing to side with or encourage those who seek to modify, rejuvenate, alter or experiment with new ideas in the hope that something will emerge to give humanity the ideal system it needs to fix the ills of modern society.

 

We think of ourselves as being an intelligent species. We need to prove it. Now is our chance to do so. If you cannot help, don’t stand in the way, Clifford May!

Saying publicly what failed when said privately

It was a long time ago that Alan Dershowitz made himself the voice of Israel in America and by extension, the English speaking world. And it was in this language that he enunciated the constitutional rule from which all other rules concerning Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, are derived.

 

What the Dershowitz rule says essentially, is that Israel reserves the right to do to the Palestinians what anyone has done to someone at any time throughout history. That is, because someone blew up the homes of others, Israel takes that as a license to blow up Palestinian homes. Because someone shot a wounded combatant in the head, Israel can do likewise, and in fact did so in the presence of cameras. Because someone killed youngsters and harvested their organs, Israel does not regret doing the same thing. The list is long and you get the picture.

 

When the Jews complained that the United Nations condemned Israel more than it did all the other jurisdictions combined, and they wanted to know why, they were told privately that Israel violated the code of decency more than the other jurisdictions combined. It is like each of the others had one sewer pipe carrying its waste, and Israel was the septic tank that took in the discharge of all the sewers.

 

This is what was told to the Jews privately in the hope that they will feel the shame of humanity’s criticism, and press Israel to stop acting with cynicism. In other words, the message to Israel was short and clear: If you don’t like our criticism, stop your cynicism. But needless to say that talking to these people was like talking to the wall. Words went into one ear and out the other.

 

The Judeo-Israeli attitude that observers of the situation in occupied Palestine find most offensive is that which describes the typical Jew as being the only thief in all of human history who will not protect himself by lying or pleading for mercy, but will attack his victims by hurtling insults at them. The fashion these days is for the Jew to call his victims antisemitic bigots and other similar names. While it was easy for the Jew to insult those who saw fault in his behavior, it was near to impossible for a victim or an observer to describe the nature of the complaint against the Jew. It was like trying to nail gelatin to the wall.

 

But the Israelis and their Jewish supporters in America have pushed their luck so much beyond the limit of tolerance, they created an opportunity for someone to make the gelatin stick to the wall. You can see how this came about when you read the article that came under the title: “Warning by Jerusalem Church Leaders That Christians Face Threat to Presence in Holy Land is ‘Baseless’: Israeli Government,” written by Sharon Wrobel and published on December 21, 2021 in the Jewish publication Algemeiner.

 

Once you get past that title as you read the article, you feel slapped in the face by the writer who tells the story out of sequence. Whereas a normal person would say: Here is what happened in the Holy Land, and here is what Israel said about it, Sharon Wrobel began with the Israeli denial, then explained what it is that was being denied. Here is that typical formulation of how the Jewish mind operates:

 

“Israel has rebuffed accusations by Church leaders that ‘fringe, radical groups’ are attempting to drive Christians out of the Holy Land as ‘baseless’ and a distortion of reality”.

 

Thus, beside showing that the dyslexic Jewish mind will put the cart before the horse, Sharon Wrobel has shown how addicted to lies Israel really is. She has shown that instead of Israel expressing astonishment at the complaint lodged by the Church leaders and promising to investigate, Israel immediately responded by counter-accusing the church leaders of leveling baseless accusations, and of distorting reality. This means that Israel was familiar with the situation, did nothing about it, denied it and denied even knowing about it … all that in one fell swoop. But if you think this was going beyond the pale, wait till you see the size of the Jewish pale.

 

Study carefully the following paragraph, which is a passage from Sharon Wrobel’s article quoting a spokesman of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, reprinted here verbatim. It will blow your mind:

 

“‘Religious leaders have a critical role to play in education for tolerance and coexistence, and Church leaders should be expected to understand their responsibility and the consequences of what they have published, which could lead to violence and bring harm to innocent people,’ stated Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman Lior Haiat”.

 

How much Jewish bull can someone pack in a 50-word sentence? The Israeli spokesman made 3 cosmic size accusations as if he were looking in the mirror and describing what he was seeing.

 

First, he treated the Church leaders as ignorant of what their duties entail, and so he lectured them on what they were missing concerning the matter of “education for tolerance and coexistence”.

 

Second, he accused Church leaders of falling short of what’s expected of them, which is to understand the consequences of them complaining about Israel’s treatment of Christians in Jerusalem.

 

Third, he made the often kept terroristic promise that if the world will not let Israel complete its ethnic cleansing of Palestine without opposition, Israel will employ the genocidal method. The words of the Israeli spokesman were to the effect that telling the world what Israel was doing “could lead to violence and bring harm to innocent people.” This always meant that Israel will bomb Palestinian women and children, a promise that was always kept.

 

And of course, the Judeo-Israeli bunch, including Sharon Wrobel, could not leave the subject without injecting a bit of the Dershowitz DNA into it. Here is how they did it:

 

“The statement by Church leaders is infuriating given their silence on the plight of Christian communities in the Middle East suffering from persecution”.

 

Translation: If they can persecute, we too can persecute because this is how our sewer operates.

Hailing badge of honor for House Representative Ilhan Omar from unlikely source

It is inconceivable that anyone who speaks English doesn’t know what the word “revolution” means. Of course, everyone knows that it means uprising of the masses against a tyrannous ruler. It is a kind of upheaval if you think about it. But does everyone know how the definition of that word came to be?

 

Well, for the benefit of those who may not know, let me tell the story. Do you remember who Cleopatra was? She was an Egyptian queen whose ancestors had migrated to Egypt from the Greek province of Macedonia, at least three centuries before she was born. They came as conquerors but loved Egypt so much, they decided to make it their home. They even fused the two cultures together, creating a mix that came to be known as the Ptolemaic period.

 

The fusion of the cultures created such an explosion of knowledge, the City of Alexandria became the center of learning in the known world at that time. One of the subjects most studied was astronomy. At the time, the astronomers didn’t know as much as we do today, and so they created a system that put the Earth at the center of the universe, and had the stars go around it in several concentric circles. This was the Ptolemaic model; one that was as cumbersome as it was complex.

 

The accumulation of observations and knowledge over the following 16 centuries cast doubt about the validity of the Ptolemaic model. Clearly, a new model was needed to make sense of the new observations that had accumulated over that period. A mathematician named Nicolaus Copernicus was the one who gathered all the known data and fit them into a theory that was simple to understand. He stated that the universe was not going around the Earth. It was the Earth that was revolving around the sun as do all the planets that were known at the time.

 

Because much of the philosophical, cultural, ideological, religious beliefs and rituals of the time were based on the Ptolemaic model, the revelation of Copernicus set the world of the Church, the sages and the gurus on fire. It was an upheaval that required a name to identified it. Since the upheaval happened as a result of the Earth revolving around the sun, it was given the name “Revolution.” From that time onward, the tendency has been to call every serious upheaval, a revolution.

 

Now, let me ask you a question: What do you say is the most expressive sign that would tell a revolution has occurred or that it is in the process of unfolding? Let me answer the question for you: It is when you see the king reduced to sweeping his own floor. And that, my friend is what’s happening in the kingdom known as AIPAC, which stands for American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

 

Let me explain. In the same way that an insurance company has salespeople who go around selling policies, in the same way that a political party has “foot soldiers” who run up and down the ridings talking to voters, in the same way that a hotel has a bunch of floor sweepers dedicated to keeping the hotel floors swept clean, AIPAC had a bunch of advocates whose job was to solicit Benjamins from those that have it and those that don’t.

 

The banknotes were swayed side to side near the eyes of the hypnosis-prone zombies running for office. It is how those braindead things were taught to repeat the refrain: I love Israel more than I love America. I love Israel. Love Israel. Yes, Israel, Israel, Israel.

 

But then it happened that King AIPAC lost his Benjamin soliciting helpers who used to sweep the ridings for him, and he was forced to sweep his own floor. Yes, my friend, it happened that AIPAC has announced it was going to do the work that others used to do for it. If anything, this is indicative of a modern day revolution now in the process of unfolding.

 

You can read all about it in an article that came under the title: “Can AIPAC help lead a new bipartisan surge of support for Israel?” and the subtitle: “The question isn’t whether the pro-Israel community should support candidates; it’s whether those contributions will make a difference if one of the two parties is being led by leftist foes of the Jewish state.” The article was written by Jonathan S. Tobin, and published on December 2021 in Jewish News Syndicate.

 

So the question to ask is this: What are these people trying to accomplish now, and how are they planning to go about it ? Well, the following is a condensed form of what Jonathan Tobin had to say about this subject. He answers that question loud and clear:

 

“To casual observers of Washington politics, the news that AIPAC was going to be contributing directly to candidates by forming two political action committees came as a surprise. The lobby was focused on mobilizing activists throughout the nation to influence their local representatives and senators. The model, sought to build a consensus that stretched across party lines. And for a long time, it worked. AIPAC activists were mobilized by the group to lobby Congress; however, the fundraising was someone else’s job. Why is AIPAC now getting directly involved in the business of contributing to candidates? In the current hyper-partisan era in which it is difficult for members of Congress to work across party lines on any issue, the old model isn’t working that well. The key question is not whether pro-Israel groups should be actively seeking to help those who are willing to stand with the Jewish state. The essence of democracy is holding those in power accountable, and the only way to do that in American politics is by supporting those who are pro-Israel and doing their best to oppose those who undermine it”.

 

Think about it, my friend, if it were not for Representative Ilhan Omar, King AIPAC would still be king, and he would still have thousands of servants serving him. Instead Omar reduced him to sweeping his own floor.

 

This makes Ms. Omar a killer of giants, which is why she’ll go down the history of America, not as the one who revolved around AIPAC, but as the one who made AIPAC revolve around her.

Once again America is invited to delude itself

We’ve been around as a civilized species for at least ten thousand years. This means events of every description have taken place in one place or another to one group of people or another during that time span. We call it our human history.

 

That is also what should compel us to think twice before accepting someone’s suggestion that what we see happen today will unfold along a predetermined line because history shows it is how a similar event has unfolded in the past.

 

The truth is that for every example that ended one way in the past, you can find in the vast annals of human history, a similar example that ended another way, maybe even the opposite way. It is important to remember all this when reading the article that came under the inquisitive title: “Has America’s Influence in the Middle East Really Declined?” and the long subtitle which reads as follows:

 

“Forty years ago, U.S. allies raised similar concerns about how America’s withdrawal from Indochina in 1973 and its “allowing” the downfall of the Shah in 1979 cast doubts on Washington’s commitment to its other allies. But America didn’t leave the Middle East then, and is not going to leave it now either”.

 

The article was written by Mark N. Katz, and published on December 18, 2021 in the National Interest.

 

The difficulty in trying to follow Katz’s reasoning is that he sees America as having influence somewhere when it has what are described as allies like today’s Egypt and the Gulf states, or when America has troops in countries that do not want them, such as Syria and Iraq. This raises the question: What exactly does Mark Katz mean when he says that America has or has no influence in the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter?

 

Still, using that nebulous yardstick, Katz proceeded to measure the influence that America has in the Middle East today, and compares it to what influence it had during different periods of the past. For example, he has determined that America is as influential in the Middle East today as it was 40 years ago at the height of the Cold War. But he cautions that it was normal for America and the Soviet Union to repeatedly win and lose allies during that era.

 

However, Mark Katz went on to add the optimistic note that whereas the Soviet Union — that was America’s superpower antagonist at the time — worked relentlessly to undermine America’s influence in the Middle East, the case is different today. According to him, the current reality is that China and Russia, who are America’s superpower antagonists today, wish to work with all the nations of the Middle East, even those that are allied with America. It is so, Mark Katz explains, for the simple reason that neither China nor Russia wants to shoulder the responsibility of providing security guarantees to those nations. They would rather let America carry that burden.

 

If you feel like Mark Katz has delivered a Chevrolet when you expected a Cadillac, relax because all is not lost. It is that a “Cadillac” essay in 5700 words was delivered at about the same time. It takes a much wider view of the global situation, and covers many of the points that Katz has tried to wrestle with.

 

The article came under the title: “The Real Crisis of Global Order,” and the subtitle: “Illiberalism on the Rise.” It was coauthored by Alexander Cooley and Daniel H. Nexon, and was published in the January/February, 2021 issue of Foreign Affairs.

 

Reading the article, you get the sense at the outset that the writers want you to know they are firmly on the side of the system known as “Liberal Democracy,” however it may be defined. As they develop the article, they do not disguise the belief that the system is threatened not only by others, but also by those in the United States of America.

 

In fact, the writers came up with an ingenious way to say that Liberal Democracy has been caught between a rock and a hard place, at least since the dark days of Donald Trump. They said that it was caught between Charybdis the sea monster, representing the bad illiberal characters of the world, and her daughter Scylla, representing what Donald Trump brought to America and may never leave.

 

Cooley and Nexon lamented that the pundits of the think tanks turned out to have guessed wrong when they predicted, for the benefit of the echo chamber, that the illiberal regimes of the world will turn liberal if and when they taste from the fruit of liberalism. Here is how our two writers expressed that thought:

 

“Key players in the established democracies in Europe and North America, assumed that reducing international barriers would facilitate the spread of liberal movements and values. It did for a time, but the resulting international order now favors a diverse array of illiberal forces, including authoritarian states, such as China, that reject liberal democracy wholesale. As well, in the eyes of many right-wing Americans and their overseas counterparts, Western illiberalism looks perfectly democratic”.

 

And while that experiment did not turn out as expected, things deteriorated in America, the supposed home of democracy. Here is how Cooley and Nexon expressed that thought:

 

“In their current form, liberal institutions cannot stem the rising illiberal tide. They must adapt to fend off threats on multiple levels. But there is a catch. Any attempt to grapple with this crisis will require policy decisions that are clearly illiberal or necessitate a new version of liberal order”.

 

But whereas Mark Katz repeated what the mistaken pundits of the echo chamber had blared, namely that everything is hunky dory as things stands now and that the status quo must be maintained, Cooley and Nexon offered the more thoughtful suggestion that:

 

“Liberal democracies really do need to assume that they will not retake the catbird seat of the international order anytime soon. And so the question becomes not whether the liberal order will change but on whose terms”.

 

Instead of telling America to delude itself once more, maybe the time has come for Mark Katz to learn the French song, “A la Claire Fontaine,” which contains the words, “Chante, rossignol, chante.” Who knows? He may be invited to attend a singing session of the illiberal catbirds.

A looseness of verbiage to say very little

Deirdre Nansen McCloskey wrote a 3000-word essay in which she tackled the hot-button issues that flow from the Critical Race Theory (CRT) debate now sweeping the United States of America.

 

The trouble is that Deirdre McCloskey has used every literary trick you can imagine to argue that even if a handful of individuals got rich trading slaves, nations did not get rich by participating in the business, let alone the British Empire or its offshoot, the States that make up America’s Deep South.

 

So then, you may ask, if not for slavery, how come the West got rich whereas the rest of the world did not? Liberty, replies Deirdre McCloskey, it is the practice of liberty that made it possible for the Western peoples to innovate, thus create the wealth they now enjoy.

 

Poor woman. She seems unaware that a great, big and fat falsehood has been debunked some time ago. It was the erroneous notion that Evolution has leapt directly from the monkeys to the liberal democracy of ancient Greece with nothing happening on Planet Earth between those two moments.

 

The truth is that from the alphabet of ancient Egypt, to its monotheism, agriculture, food and beverage preparations, architecture, chemistry and cosmetics of that country, innovation is what Greece inherited before injecting that Civilization into the rest of Europe. And this is not to mention Babylon’s law and code of conduct or China’s gun powder and spaghetti, or the windmill of Persia, and many, many more innovations that filled the time gap between the monkey and the rise of Greece.

 

So then, what is it that allowed the creation of wealth, both for the ancient and modern empires? Well, there is a single word that tells this story: Surplus. And the best way to understand the concept, is to tell a story that highlights it most salient points.

 

So, imagine a household in the middle of nowhere. The breadwinner goes to work far away every day and comes home carrying food, which is the most important item for the survival of the family. We can ignore the other needs for the purpose of this discussion. However, because the family’s need for food is greater than the breadwinner’s salary can buy, the oldest son who goes to school, works part-time to supplement his father’s salary.

 

Actually, father and son get paid money every day, which they use to buy the food they take home. For a while, they spend as much as they receive, and the family is happy with that. They go on in this manner for a while till one day, the father gets a raise in his salary, equal to what the son is earning. He discusses the matter with the family, and they decide that instead of increasing their consumption, they will save the surplus money to do one of two things. They will invest the money and watch it grow. Or the son will stop working, and spend the free time he now has to work on the innovation that had been his passion since childhood when he longed to someday break into the big league and be recognized as a great inventor.

 

But how did the concept of surplus help Britain and its American offshoot move ahead of everyone and get rich? Well, Britain built a powerful navy that allowed it to trade with its colonies, also allowed it to play the role of middleman in the trades that took place between the colonies. This is how Britain accumulated the wealth that sustained the navy, fed the nation, and created the surplus that freed its citizens to engage in science, industry and the pursuit of innovations.

 

As to the cotton fields of the American Deep South, the story of King Cotton was not invented to entertain people. It was invented because it had a commercial value not only to the growers of cotton, but also the States that practiced slavery. This happened because labor is a commodity that can be in shortage or in surplus. In fact, having slaves to do the work, was the surplus that freed the citizens of those states to engaged in science, industry and the pursuit of innovation. And this situation was just fine with the tax collecting governments of those States.

 

There is still a question that bedevils the thinking mind. It is this: Why is it that instead of prospering, or at least remaining stagnant, the economies of the colonies that had a glorious past, deteriorated when they could have taken advantage of the increased trade brought about by the British, and make the best of the new opportunities opening to them? To understand this part and answer the question, we go back to the analogy of the household in the middle of nowhere.

 

Imagine a big change happening in the government of the jurisdiction where that house is located. It turns out to be a foreign invasion that came to exploit the resources of this and the surrounding jurisdictions. The invaders issue a proclamation levying taxes on the citizens of the jurisdiction, but give every breadwinner the chance to petition and have the tax load reduced on the family.

 

The breadwinner of the household in the middle of nowhere turns to his inventive son, and tells him to come up with a visual contraption that will explain to the commissars of the invading force what will happen if the tax rate is not reduced on this family. What the son does, is build a 100-liter basin. He adds to it both a nozzle with which to replenish it with water, and an adjustable drain with which to control, the amount of water that the basin is made to lose.

 

When the commissars arrive to hear the presentation, the son explains that the family’s finances resemble this contraption. There are 100 liters of “reserve” water in the basin. What the father earns is like one liter a day going into the basin. What the family spends is like one liter a day going down the drain. This is why the family’s standard of living remains static, or call it stagnant if you wish.

 

If now, the tax load will add to what the basin loses every day, the finances of the family will deteriorate. Unless the father’s earnings match or exceed what is lost at the drain — to feed the family and pay the taxes — the basin will be depleted sooner or later. Beyond this point, the family will see its standard of living reduced because it will live on a reduced income and no reserves left from which to draw.

 

That’s what the colonial powers did to the colonies they conquered. They took more of their resources and their talented people than the colonies could replenish themselves. And so, while the colonial masters prospered, the colonies steadily declined.

 

If this is what Deirdre Nansen McCloskey is trying to hide, shame on her!