Information and Opinions in the modern Age

Because we know that one way or the other … that sooner or later, information will lead to action, we insist that the disseminated information – whether it was intended to reach us or intended to reach someone else – be accurate so that the resulting action conform to the incidents that generated the information in the first place.

This is what the situation looked like in the age of innocence when human beings first discovered they had the ability to communicate with each other, transferring information from one being to another while eliminating the need for everyone to witness the incident that generated the information in the first place. But then, innocence got lost when someone discovered that information can be manipulated to make the others take the wrong sort of action, and with that serve the interests of the manipulator rather than serve the cause of truth. And when the truth was made to suffer, so did the concept of justice – that most fundamental of all the causes.

Today, after thousands of years of development in the field of communication and other related fields, information is designed in all sorts of forms, and disseminated in all sorts of ways for purposes that are not always legitimate. It is sometimes designed with fabricated incidents to incite someone powerful to move against those who might wish to be left alone, and have every right to that privilege.

These would be the people who believe in what they do even if it is viewed as being odd by someone else. Opposed to them are the people who do things in hiding; things that would be viewed as repugnant if the world knew about them. The first might alter their behavior just enough to make it acceptable to the rest of society. The second will use their skills at creating deception, and thus make society give them credit for feats they did not accomplish. They will also use their skills to make society go against the people who wish to be left alone.

The first believe in the philosophy of live and let live. They do not interfere in the affairs of other, and dislike being interfered with. The second will continually seek to find all they can about their neighbors because they believe that their own well-being and their continued existence depend on being in control of their lives and the lives of others. If they cannot neutralize the neighbors by turning society against them, they will seek to team up with someone powerful, and get the latter to go after the neighbors.

If you are getting the impression that the second kind of people is obsessed with the first, you got the right impression, my friend. And you can see how all that works in real life by going over two pieces of writing; one written by Michael Singh and one by the editors of the New York Times. Singh wrote an article under the title: “Egypt After the Election: Advancing the Strategic Relationship,” published on the website of the Washington Institute on May 30, 2014. As to the editors of New York Times, they came up with an editorial under the title: “Egypt's Latest Military Strongman,” published on June 1, 2014.

Singh whose view of the world is that it is owned by the Jews who have the right to do with it what they wish but cannot always do so because the world does not always cooperate. This is where America comes into play because it is the power that can bend the world to the wish of the Jews. And he sees his job as advising America on how to go about doing that. Right now he sees that Egypt has the upper hand in the struggle to remain free of outside influence because it has alternatives to America such as the Arab Gulf States and Russia.

So then, guess what Singh is suggesting now. He is telling America to repeat the mighty blunder it committed six decades ago and cost it dearly while strengthening the moral authority of Egypt. Whereas America was able to persuade its European allies at the time to join it in tightening the screws on an Egypt that was trying to build the Aswan mega project, Singh is now telling America to try and persuade the Arab Gulf States to join it in tightening the screws on an Egypt that wants to build not one mega-project but several of them. This is how you shoot yourself in the foot and put a hole in your head at the same time. If America were a child, Singh would be a monstrous babysitter.

As to the editors of the New York Times, they are huffing and puffing because they feel that Egypt's President elect Abdel Fattah el-Sisi seems bent on giving the Egyptian people stability which is what they want rather than listen to them at the Times, and to their Jewish masters in Washington and Tel Aviv. And so the funky editors want their own President, Obama, to do something about it, and do it soon.

Europe's fault Line that is not Europe's fault

Much has been written about the election results to the European Parliament, and most of that had to do with Europe's apparent drift towards the extreme right of the political spectrum. The latest example is the article written by Matthew D'Ancona, who is based in England but whose piece “Europe's Dangerous New Fault Line” has appeared in the New York Times on May 31, 2014.

There is a fault line alright, and not just in Europe but in all of what has come to be called the “West.” This is basically Europe, North America and Australia – more specifically the fault line exists in the English language media outlets published in those places. What you find in those outlets is advice that is the exact opposite of what should be done and what should not be done.

To understand this, let us agree that there is a difference between countries such as America which is made of immigrants, and the countries of Europe where people have a more pronounced sense of ethnic identity. That is, the Americans will, in general, accept the “other” more readily than the Europeans. Despite that, every wave of new immigrants coming from any part of the world was discriminated against by the existing population in America, even by those of the same ethnicity but had been in the country for two generations or longer.

With time, however, the locals got used to the Irish, the Poles, the Italians, the Asians, the Latinos, the Russians, the Muslims and what have you … all except the Jews. Even at the height of the cold war when the news and entertainment industries were having a field day depicting the Russians as dangerous villains out to obliterate America using all sorts of horrific weapons, the animosity shown by the general public toward the Russians was almost non existent.

The same was true with the Asians whose mafia-like gangs were wreaking havoc in America, but whose antics never threatened the general population enough to shake it. And then came the events of 9/11, and you would think that the Muslims were treated so badly they wanted to leave America and go live somewhere else. But no, according to several studies – many conducted by Jewish organizations – the level of hatred toward the Jews in America has remained six or seven times higher than toward the Muslims.

Why is that? You get a hint as to the answer from the way that Matthew D'Ancona ends his article. He says this: “What separates statesmanship from the routine practice of politics is the courage to take the risks of plain speaking and decisive action when they have to be taken. Europe needs such statesmanship now.” He is asking the politicians to turn into statesmen by speaking plainly and by taking decisive action. Has such request been made before? Yes, it has been made all the time, in fact. Who made it? The Jews did. What did they want? They wanted that the various governments explain to their people all matters which are sensitive to the Jews such as the special treatment given to them and to Israel.

And when the politicians agree to this, the Jewish leaders scan the nation to pick the incidents, the places and the moments when they will want the politicians to “speak plainly and act decisively.” One such place and time would be the denial of the Holocaust … but worse than that, it would be the mere questioning of “the scale of the Holocaust,” as mentioned in the D'Ancona article. And if you think that the Holocaust is such a sensitive issue with the Jews such that anything related to it causes them to overreact, you would be wrong. The reality is that they overreact to everything no matter how small it is. They do so to quash the thing right away because, in their mind, anything that is done is done deliberately, and meant to lead to the extermination of the Jews. It always boils down to an existential matter to them.

Thus, having had the field all to themselves at a time when there was no “political correctness,” and they were free to call the Arabs “mad dogs,” “wounded animals” and “cockroaches deserving extermination by insecticide,” they did not tolerate an article I wrote in which I explained that Egypt was not as bad as portrayed; something I did without mentioning the Jews or Israel. And the punishment for that has been a lifelong blacklisting of everything I wrote, and the denial of any job I could have gotten that would have facilitated telling my story to the world. And this situation has lasted for close to half a century now with no end in sight.

People in Europe, America, the West and everywhere else in the world do not need to hear stories like mine to develop a deep visceral fear and loathing for the Jews. The human instinct allows them to sense what Judaism is all about, and the fear that is generated as to what the Jew is capable of doing to them, repels them away from these people whether they are Caucasian, Middle Eastern looking or Black skinned Jews.

This should lead us to conclude that in time, the Europeans will learn to live with immigration as did the Americans, but they will never accept the Jewish demands to be treated with special care anymore than the Americans do now. And the more that the Jews will ask for special treatment because they are singled out, the more they will be singled out for hate.

No Musketeer but here come three Warmongers

A musket is a primitive sort of gun, built and used in a bygone era. Similar but deadlier guns are used in modern times along with other weapons that the musketeers could not have imagined in their time. And in the same way that they had musketeer stories to tell in the old days, we have warmonger stories to tell in the modern era.

Also, in a manner somewhat similar to the thousand and one stories that were told in a thousand and one nights, our modern warmongering stories have dwindled – for the sake of brevity – to three of them, and told over three days. Moreover they are told by the three warmongering characters themselves; all of whom are Jewish (no surprise here,) and all of whom are whining that the current President of the United States is not creating rivers of blood to lift their spirits and make their hearts sing with joy.

Our first warmonger is Elliott Abrams who came up with: “Obama just accidentally explained why his foreign policy hasn't worked,” published on May 28, 2014 in the Washington Post. Our second is Charles Krauthammer who came up with: “Obama's Ad Hoc Foreign Policy” and the subtitle: “His West Point speech and his policy of retreat are characterized by smallness.” It was syndicated to several publications, among them, the May 29, 2014 edition of National Review Online. Our third warmonger is none other than the original architect of the Iraq holocaust, Paul Wolfowitz who came up with: “The Crumbling Deal on Syria's Chemical Weapons” and the subtitle: “Anyone who still thinks Assad will meet his obligations should study how Libya's disarmament went in 2004.” It was published on May 30, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.

Krauthammer being the smartest Jew to repeatedly screw his own cause royally has written the most interesting story; one that describes how the screwing is done as clearly as can be described. Look how he does that. He first complains: “As for Obama's interventionists, they are described as people 'who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak' … Name one person.” He goes on: “What actual earthlings are eager for is sending military assistance to Ukraine's woefully equipped forces.” Forces? Did he say forces? What kind of forces are these? Ukrainian nuns fidgeting rosaries? Or is it military forces?

Oh no, don't misunderstand me, he seems to say; and that's because he is not making such request himself. It is “what the interim prime minister [of Ukraine] asked for. Two months later, military assistance (military again?) was the first thing Ukraine's newly elected president, said he wanted from the United States.” And to make sure you do not misunderstand him ever again, Krauthammer makes himself clear with this note: no boots on the ground. By that he means no American soldiers will be sent to fight someone else's war.

So here you have a Jew – who always found something in history to warn that if you fail to do this, the outcome will be the same as when the Sudetenland was invaded – failing to remind the readers this time that when America tried to help the South Vietnamese, she ended up fighting the war for them; and when America tried to help the Afghans, she ended up fighting them as they turned against her after defeating the old Soviet Union.

You don't understand, Krauthammer seems to cry out. He is not the one to complain, he says. It is that: “most of the complaints are coming from abroad,” he asserts. And so you ask: what's the significance of this? And he tells you what that is by asking: “What is the world to think when Obama … announces a drawdown of American forces followed by total liquidation within two years?” What the Jew is advocating here is for the American troops to remain in Afghanistan till they are forced to evacuate under fire. This was the way they did it in Saigon on one of the most humiliating days for the American military.

As to Paul Wolfowitz, he is not following the example of Krauthammer who denied by omission the Jewish habit of using a historical precedent to draw analogies with the current situation. Wolfowitz makes it clear even in the subtitle that to know what goes on inside the head of Syria's Assad today, one “should study how Libya's disarmament went in 2004,” ten years ago.

So you ask: What's your point, Paul? And he seems to say: Nothing. Just talk. It looks like the matter of chemical weapons will be resolved one way or the other to the satisfaction of everyone. But the truth is that Assad is a vicious killer who uses conventional weapons to wage war on his own people, and Obama is doing nothing about it.

What does that mean in the grand scheme of things, Paul? Like Krauthammer, Wolfowitz responds by invoking the reaction of foreigners. He puts it this way: “It has left millions of Syrians embittered – along with millions more across the Arab world – and has emboldened authoritarian rulers to act aggressively from Ukraine to the South China Sea.”

What he means to say is that if only Obama had bombed Syria, Putin of Russia and the Chinese leaders would be trembling in their boots now, and would not have moved against Ukraine or the South China Sea. Anyone out there believes any of this?

Now to Elliott Abrams. The first thing he does is invoke the foreign view of things: “the policy will be of little comfort to our allies,” he says. Okay, you say to yourself, and you read the article several times to see what exactly that policy is, and why it will be of little comfort to the allies. But guess what, Abrams does not know what the policy is. In fact, he complains throughout the article that the President is not explaining things.

Abrams also speaks of successes that belong to the Bush era for which Obama took credit; and he speaks of failures that Obama has not tried to fix. But he says nothing about Obama's foreign policy except that it is weak – says nothing about its shortcomings or about an alternative policy.

Still, he ends he article the way he began it by invoking the view of foreigners. This time, however, he does it in a clever way by using the President's own words against him: “Mr. Obama said that Russia's aggression unnerves capitals in Europe, while China's economic rise and military reach worry its neighbors.” And so Abrams adds his own view: Their nerves won't be any better after listening to what he [Obama] said.

Three Jews saying – each in his own way – that America should go to war and stay at war for ever. They are the warmongers.

The Morning after the Love Affair

A day in the life of a human being is 24 hours long, but when it comes to the life of a nation, a day can be several months long. And so, there is a lesson to be learned about the people of Egypt who flooded the streets and the squares of the nation one day last year to acclaim their now President-elect El-Sisi as if to consummate a love affair with him … but then stayed home in droves the next day which happened to be the day of suffrage when they were supposed to confirm their marriage vows to him. How to explain this apparent incongruity?

Well, you might think it was a case of cold feet gripping the nation but you would be wrong because there is something more profound than that. It is that the people of Egypt have a powerful sense of their long history. They have seen modernity come and go for 7000 years which is more than 2.5 million days long. Of course, they do not shun what is viewed as being modern these days, but they know this too shall soon become “old stuff,” and replaced by something else on the altar of what passes for latest cry. And so it is with the silly act of having to stand in line for hours on a hot day to cast a vote for someone they voted for by acclamation only yesterday.

They had their love affair, and what they want to see now is exciting times ahead. They know what they can do as a nation when they put their mind to it because, of the seven to ten thousand years of human civilization, they sat on top of the heap, on and off, for three quarters of that time. They can do it again they believe, and in fact, have developed a desire to get back to the top after an absence of three centuries. They want Sisi to lead them there without being preoccupied with projecting the image of an Egypt that says to the world: look here, we are modernizing along Western and Democratic lines. The people of Egypt want to do things the way they used to do them, which is to create their own modernity and attract the world to it. That's what it means to be on top.

They know now they have an economy that can withstand multiple shocks inflicted simultaneously, and they know they have natural resources buried underground that will give them self-sufficiency for several generations to come. Added to the human capital which they represent, the economy that brought them to this point is poised to take them to new frontiers guided by the leadership qualities they see in Sisi. This is why they want him to devote the minimum attention to the rest of the world, and concentrate his energies on finding ways to unlock the potential of his own people – they, who are the citizens of Egypt.

Like most people in the world, ordinary Egyptians do not spend much time looking at the latest figures which are supposed to represent the health of the economy. The people make that determination themselves from what they see around them, and they act accordingly. What they have been doing lately is live it up as if they sensed that the good times are about to roll again. They are buying homes as well as home appliances and home entertainment systems like never before. And they are using electricity at a rate that increases by 10 percent a year – twice what the planners had expected.

This augurs well for the potential investors who might have been eying the country already because of its large population, of its disciplined human capital and its large pool of a well trained industrial labor force. Strategically placed at the meeting point of the three continents slated to form the new theater of economic activity, Egypt has once again become the natural hub of every commerce having an international character.

For that reason, large international companies – especially those based in Europe and North America where economic activities are expected to slow down in relative terms – are looking to Egypt as the place where they will go to establish themselves, and have a chance at standing up to the current Asian competitors, as well as those still developing and promising to become the giants of tomorrow.

And when these companies go to Egypt, they find that a number of schools, and at least one university from back home are already there teaching and graduating Egyptians in whatever language they came with. These would be young men and women who know the cultures they study as well as they do their own, and do the surrounding Arab and other cultures. When hired by a foreign company, they fit into the culture like hand in glove, and start running the moment that they hit the ground.

Sisi has his hands full getting an enterprise as large and complex as Egypt back on its feet, but he also has a people and a toolbox which are the envy of every leader.

World Scale Schizo-Paranoia resurfacing

As individuals we go through life facing all sorts of threats ranging from the benign to the severe. A danger can come from a neighbor that is never friendly, a coworker that is jealous, a partner that is developing strange ideas about the partnership and so on. As a society, we also face threats that may come from gangs of hooligans roaming the vicinity, a government that is corrupt or incompetent, an unsavory neighboring state that keeps violating the country's territorial integrity and so on.

A level-headed individual will keep things in perspective in that he or she will assess the danger posed by the neighbor, the coworker or the partner – and work out a contingency plan for each of them should things start to get out of hand. As to the society, it will take measures that will contain the threat posed by the gangs. Even if the government is corrupt or incompetent, it will consult with allies and the proper international organizations from whom it will solicit moral support, and where needed, the assistance that will help repel any aggressive move attempted by the unsavory neighbor.

Most of the time, the situation stays simple enough that a confusion is unlikely to develop, thus all things remain under control. But there are times when confusion may develop, thus escalate the situation to a serious level. It can happen because of an honest error committed by one side or the other, a miscalculation made by either side; or it can happen because of a serious defect in the character of someone. Looking closely, that defect will prove to be paranoia, schizophrenia or a combination of the two.

Unfortunately, such developments happen too often in the fast moving life of the big city, and they result in heartbreaking outcomes. It happens less often on the international stage but when it does, the consequences can be devastating and long lasting. For this reason, it is desirable that we, as a society, develop the skills that will help us detect those among us who may be disposed to imbue the environment in such a way as to make the people they come into contact with behave as if gripped by the defect. These people may or may not themselves go off the rails; but they will have the ability to inject insidious signals into the culture, thus infest it.

You can see how that works when you study two articles published recently. The first was written by John R. Bolton under the title: “Pretending the Islamic fury does not exist” and the subtitle: “Denial will only worsen the day of reckoning” It was published on May 27, 2014 in the Washington Times. The second is actually an editorial written by the editors of the Wall Street Journal under the title: “Iran's Nuclear Masters” and the subtitle: “Tehran has kept its core team of weaponization researchers intact.” It was published on May 28, 2014 in the Journal.

What Bolton does in his article is akin to someone saying there exist a neighbor here that is not friendly, a jealous coworker over there who may be dangerous, and a partner that may be developing strange ideas sitting in the corner office of the floor. And Bolton ends with this: “These catastrophes are related, sometimes involving close cooperation among [them]. Our unwillingness to grasp the connections and discuss them rationally will not make them disappear, and certainly will not make them easier to defend against. Seeing the world clearly is not evidence of animus. Instead, refusing to acknowledge the obvious is a form of blindness that can be fatal.”

As he himself acknowledges, these are obvious incidences, each of which is bad but not so bad as to be apocalyptic. And, in fact, they may all have materialized because the human tendency to copycat is a powerful instinct. But for Bolton to clutch on this straw and conclude that what he sees in others is a form of blindness that can be fatal because there may be a connection (which no one denies) between the various incidences – is proof of a schizo-paranoia that is plaguing Bolton and his likes … a disease that is the real danger to the world.

It is the defect whose influence is so insidious; it can stealthily permeate the entire culture, and demand that someone “fess up” to something that never happened. When no fessing is done, those infected by the disease ask America to “shock and awe them” to kingdom come as it was done to the Iraqis. Bolton, among others, has tried to repeat that performance with Iran but have not as yet been successful. And so, you see their surrogates, such as the editors of the Wall Street Journal, jump into the fray and add their two-cent worth of advocacy.

Because progress is being made in the talks between Iran and the P5+1, you see the editors who have been infected by the disease, whine about Teheran keeping the team of researchers intact. What did they expect Teheran to do with these people? Grind them and make meatballs out of them?

Starting with the disclosure made by an Iranian opposition group (MEK), the editors of the Wall Street Journal discuss history in a manner that suits their current aim, which they blurt out in the style of speculation at the end of the editorial: “If past is precedent and the MEK's disclosures are to be believed [Iran] will continue as it has to this day. The snake may shed its skin but not its temper, runs an old Persian proverb.”

Yes, indeed. Bolton has not shed his temper and never will he. As to the editors of the Journal, they are still trying to shed their skin.

Interpretation cannot replace Innovation

America, you have a problem. It is called the First Amendment of the Constitution, a principle of governance that must have been inspired when it was formulated at first, but is clashing with a modern era whose exigencies could not have been foreseen by the framers of the Constitution at the time that they framed it. Here is how the Amendment reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.”

The part that stands on contentious grounds at this time is this: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom … of the press.” It has come to light lately that in an era of instant worldwide communication, a piece of secret information leaked to a journalist has the potential to harm the nation greatly when used by a potential enemy that may be working to harm the country from half a world away.

No one has suggested that the journalist to whom the information was leaked should be punished for publishing it. The question is whether or not the journalist can be forced under the threat of punishment, such as a jail term, to divulge who the source of the leak was.

One such case will soon be taken up by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is discussed in an article written by Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. under the title: “A First Amendment Blind Spot” and the subtitle: “Recent Supreme Court rulings have protected free speech for just about everyone but journalists.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 28, 2014.

Having laid out the particulars of the case, Boutrous remarks that “the First Amendment singles out freedom 'of the press' as … warranting protection.” He reminds the readers that 50 years ago, the High Court “protected journalists from spurious defamation claims.” But he laments that while the Court repeatedly interpreted the First Amendment so expansively as to protect free speech in all sorts of circumstances – ranging from campaign financing to film making to picketing at funerals, to Nazi parades – it has failed to protect journalists who report on major national security issues.

Thus, Mr. Boutrous who is a lawyer and has filed a friend-of-the court brief in this case, is asking the Supreme Court to “apply its expansive modern view of the First Amendment, for the first time, to protect freedom of the press.” In other words, he is asking the Court to interpret language written two centuries ago in such a way as to harmonize with the modern tendency to expand on the freedoms that people enjoy. This is a good thing; and it is, in fact, what the Court has been doing for a long while now.

The problem, however, is that the threats to the nation have also been expanding, and when it comes to national security, the more that freedom is granted to journalists, the greater the potential risk to the nation and to millions of people.

In a situation such as that, the simple act of interpreting an amendment of the Constitution will prove to be inadequate to deal with the consequences. What is required is for the Congress to look into the question, and legislate in such a way as not to abridge the freedom of the press, but in a way that will protect the nation from its possible abuses. This is a time when comprehensive innovation must replace the simple act of interpretation.

This will be a tricky thing to do, and will require a great deal of thinking on the part of many smart people. Thus, what the Supreme Court can do for now is probably to stay the case for a time while giving guidance to the Congress at to how it may proceed.

What will come out of all that should be used in the future to rewrite the First Amendment.

From free intellectual Inquiry to Indoctrination

There was a time at the start of the Jewish cultural conquest of North America that a handful of non-Jews began to question what the rabbis were doing, flooding the media as they did with material they said will help educate the public on Jewish sensitivities. A mini debate ensued among the rabbis and other prominent Jewish figures as to how far they can go trying to stifle the query of those who ask for details with regard to certain subjects before intervening and saying this is a line that must not be crossed.

Those who took the side of stifling the query were maximalists, and would not allow any question that might cast doubt on a subject such as the Holocaust, for example. They maintained that a query in this regard would constitute a denial of the Holocaust, and that's a line that must not be crossed. On the other hand, the more moderate side was saying it is better to let the “skeptics” air their concerns so that they may be responded to. This sort of questions must be addressed, they insisted, rather than let the individuals who voice them internalize them, having no escape valve to relieve the pressure.

The puzzling part is that the mini debate happened solely among Jews with no participation from the people they were talking about, which is the rest of the population. The object of the discussion being none other than the future development of the culture on this Continent, the maximalists scored a huge triumph when they managed to shut out the moderate side in no time at all. For a while, it seemed they were correct in predicting that nothing nefarious will happen as long as you educate everybody on how to toe the line, and swiftly move to punish the few who will refuse to come into the fold.

And then it happened that those who were safe because they taught at the university level and had tenure began to speak out. This is when Alan Dershowitz and his likes sprung into action trying to punish the professors, some of whom turned out to lack tenure and suffered for it. Still, the effort failed because, absent an escape valve, the concerns had built up enough pressure to blow up the container itself. It looks now that the North American movement of cultural liberation from the grip of the Jews is spreading to the middle and high schools. And guess what – it is the rabbis, once again, who are intervening to keep the concerns of the public bottled up with no escape valve that would allow for relief.

This is evident in the article written by Rabbi Reuven H. Taff under the title: “Turning Holocaust Denial Into Homework” and the subtitle: “Another dubious lesson in 'critical thinking': Pretend you're a Nazi, explain why Jews are evil.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 27, 2014.

The rabbi tells what happened in New York and California that he did not like, and explains his thinking this way: “Critical thinking and formulating persuasive arguments are essential skills for children to develop. But these projects aren't appropriate for either goal.” The question that comes to mind right away is the following: Why is that? And he answers it. He says that because the educators are encouraging students to question a historical fact, and exploring the possibility that the Jews were the source of Germany's problems, they are fomenting antisemitism rather than help develop critical thinking or formulate persuasive arguments. He is, therefore, saying that there will be a side effect that will eclipse the original intent of the exercise.

He recognizes that every topic has two sides and, to explore it fully, both sides must be articulated by opposing debaters. He goes on to say, however, that to choose subjects such as those (sensitive to Jews) shows lack of common sense on the part of educational professionals. And so he lists 15 other topics ranging from the death penalty to money in politics, which he says have two sides, thus would lend themselves perfectly well for debate by the students. Why is that? Because “those issues can help students develop critical thinking and formulate persuasive arguments based on research and facts.” Hum!

And this is when even children of middle and high school age will question his judgment. They will ask first of all: What side effect will result from tackling each of the 15 topics he mentioned? Second, why single out the Jewish topics for exclusion from the debate at a time when the Jews are accusing everyone else of singling them out, and complaining bitterly about it? The children will process these questions among themselves, determine that those subjects must have an appeal as sexy as the nude photographs they are forbidden to look at, and will seek to find out more about them. And there will be another Dershowitz who will try to stop the trend, but will be run over like a skunk on a busy highway.

And while this is happening, Rabbi Reuven Taff and his scouts will find a kid – probably a nerdy looking one of Asian descent – whom they will brainwash, and put words in his mouth to regurgitate when asked to, whereby he will “insist that the school district apologize because of 'the idea they planted in kids' minds.'” But that's not all because the rabbi will also team up with grownups already under his wing, to create a Holocaust Educators Network that will seek to educate the educators by giving them “sensitivity training and guidance.”

And he believes – like those who preceded him long ago – that he can put the genie back into the bottle and go on making North America not the land of free intellectual inquiry but the land of Jewish indoctrination.

Poor Sisyphus. They thought he was run over by his own boulder long ago, but he is still alive and waiting for a sixteen wheeler to run him over.