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.

When the gimme Crowd loses its calling Card

Tom Rogan wrote an article under the title: “Toure, the Holocaust and Hashtagosophy” and the subtitle: “In four words he trivialized mass murder.” It was published on May 26, 2014 in National Review Online. I don't know who Toure is but the picture accompanying the article tells me I may have seen him once or twice while surfing the television channels.

I reckon he is of African descent as much as I reckon from Tom Rogan's writing that he must be Jewish. I am not going to mediate between these two gentlemen; they are capable of looking after themselves. But there is something about the Rogan article that reminds me of discussions I had with Jews that were friendly to me and others that were not so friendly. No matter which way the discussions began and what course they took, they always boiled down to a couple of related questions: What moral or financial claim do Jews who did not experience the Holocaust have over society? What moral or financial obligation does anyone that was not responsible for the Holocaust have towards the Jews?

The answers always came down to the reality that Jews who never experienced the Holocaust were owed nothing, morally or financially. As to those who were not responsible for the Holocaust, they owed nothing even to the survivors of the Holocaust, let alone to those who weren't even born then. And so, during my discussions with the Jews who thought I owed them something because they were as Jewish as those that experienced the Holocaust, they came to understand that I had every right to be contemptuous of them if they believed I owe them enough deference not to criticize them if they did what may offend me.

Thus, to have offended Canadian Jews who never experienced the Holocaust, such that I deserve to be blacklisted for life because I wrote an article titled: Don't listen to propaganda, Egypt is a civilized country – in response to a year-long barrage of insults that portrayed my countrymen as being primitive savages – gives me the right to tell the truth as I see it about the nature of Judaism. And the fact that six million Jews were exterminated at just about the time that I was born does not give a Jew the right to make a claim on me because of something that happened long ago, away from here that neither he nor I had anything to do with.

And no, I shall not visit a Holocaust memorial or a concentration camp because they mean nothing to me. In fact, the people who suffer and those who die today – be they Palestinians or human rights advocates – because the Holocaust happened to Jews long ago, concern me more than those who died then and cannot be brought back to life. If I want to learn about man's inhumanity to man, I have my own experience to study, and the experience of those who at this very moment suffer at the hands of Jews. I do not need to visit a Holocaust memorial or a concentration camp to teach me that lesson; I am the lesson in flesh and blood.

And so are the individuals who may have been passed over for a slice of the good life because of the color of their skin to accommodate a Jew whose skin might be of a different color. Toure can speak for himself in this regard, but I can say that to make reference to the fact that skin color still matters in America is not something that can be countered with an argument about the Holocaust.

The fact that Rogan has mounted the savage attack he did on Toure tells me that Norman Finklestein's argument to the effect that the Holocaust has become a business by which the Jewish leaders enrich themselves is true. Finklestein lost family during the Holocaust, and he could have joined the gimme crowd to get rich in the process but that's not what he wanted. Because his moral compass is not of the kind that guides the likes of Tom Rogan, he would have been satisfied to see a dignified yearly ceremony at which time the living would take a minute of silence to remember the dead.

Rogan, on the other hand, shows every sign that he is terrified of the possibility he may lose the privileges he has gained by virtue of the fact that he is a Jew, that Jews died long ago, and therefore he is entitled to things which people who suffer today because of the color of their skin are not entitled to. He has a calling card to the cushy life, and he does not want to lose it. He is a miserable creature that deserves only contempt.

Now you now why pogroms and holocausts are inflicted on Jews only. Blame it on their leaders.

Treating others like Wusses kills your Message

First, let me tell you what I think a wuss is. A wuss is someone who would stand in front of a television camera and confidently declare: “they fight us because they hate freedom.” This is what we saw on American television over and over again by ordinary American human beings – males and females – whose heads, hearts and souls had been filled with Jewish moral syphilis.

It happened in America because the Jewish leaders, who long ago planned to take over the country, recognized the potential of the media to help them succeed. They worked stealthily and steadily till they succeeded so brilliantly, they could make people believe in ideas so absurd, they shook the confidence of the world in America's ability to think straight, even to be classified as a good citizen of the Planet.

Whereas in the past, the official Voice of America, as well as the voices of the private American media were treated the world over like sterling voices of truth and authority, they are now regarded as the incessant bark of running dogs competing in the rink of extremist absurdities to catch a bone thrown at them by their Jewish master. And the result has been a society of wusses that will regurgitate whatever the Jew will feed them, thus make the world shake its head with disgust, sorrow and even pity.

I used to listen to the Voice of America while living in Egypt from the late 1950s to the early 1960s, and I liked it. I have not listened to it ever since but I am not surprised to learn it is in trouble now. An editorial in the New York Times tells all about that under a title that reads: “The Pitch of America's Voice,” published on May 26, 2014. What is so alarming about this editorial is that it fits exactly – and I mean exactly – the saying about the blind leading the blind.

I cannot speak directly about what is wrong with the Voice of America having stopped listening to it a long time ago. But I know the state of American journalism well enough that I can say something in this regard. I also followed for a while the American television channel aimed at the Arab world known as “Horrah” which is Arabic for freedom. And there is NPR which is partially funded by the American government, and knows about the Arab world as much as a rat knows about the Big Bang Theory.

These are all lamentable failures because they treat the Arab audiences the way that the Jews have been treating the American people. Whereas the Americans turned into wusses, the Arabs turned into fierce anti-American tigers that get filled with anger by every attempt to inject into their heads, hearts or souls the infamous moral syphilis of the Jews. And I am certain that the same thing must be happening with the Voice of America in every language that it broadcasts because the Jews are interested not only in the Arab World but in the whole wide world.

Can this change? Apparently not from the looks of it which is that the blind editors of the New York Times – and probably others like them – have taken the trouble to advise the blind in charge of fixing the federal broadcast outlet. Look how they start the editorial: “Vladimir Putin's aggressive return to Cold War propaganda is feeding congressional momentum for a bipartisan overhaul of Voice of America.” Well, the Times editors may not know it, the American people may not know it but the world knows that when you have the two words, congress and bipartisan, in the same sentence, you do not mean to say America speaks for itself, you mean to say America is mass producing the Jewish moral syphilis.

Furthermore, the idea of having an outlet for news, information and education is to do the right thing without regard to what others may be doing. You do not get into a competition with someone, and pretend to be a neutral observer of life. This is how the Voice of America behaved long ago, and why I liked it as did many others. But now, nothing that the American media do escapes the Jewish view that every truth uttered by the enemy of the day must be balanced by a shower of lies that can smother it.

In fact, to tell a lie so convincingly that it cannot be detected is what makes a young Jew eligible to grow up and become a rabbi. And it looks like those who strive to fix the Voice of America are competing to show their eligibility to become rabbis.

The editors of the New York Times may not see it that way, ordinary Americans may not be sophisticated enough to detect it but audiences the world over can smell it from ten thousand miles away. And they get sick of it.

Distorted Visions leading to American Errors

If you want to know why America is doing so badly on the international stage, you only need to study the kind of vision its leaders develop when trying to interpret what the foreigners are saying and doing. Because we live in an age of abundant information, the political leaders and opinion makers have the option of letting themselves be overwhelmed by what is happening, or that of relying on aids to review the mass of incoming information, choose what they determine are essential, and brief their bosses on them.

If the leaders take the first option, they will be confused; if they take the second, they will acquire a vision that's in line with the biases of the aids – neither of which will do the country any good when acted upon. On the surface, this seems a conundrum that is faced only by the so-called democracies. To check it out, you dig deep into the subject, and discover that the appearance is indeed correct. It turns out that the systems in other countries – whatever they call themselves – do not have the same problem; and the leaders over there do not have to choose between bad options. They know exactly what they see, and they respond accordingly.

So the question: What is the difference between those who pretend to be democrats (whether or not they are) and those who do not pretend to practice democracy (whether or not they do)? To answer the question in two words; it is the double standard. Yes, the difference between the two is none other than the practice of the double standard. Because it is difficult to live up to the ideals of a true democracy, the people who pretend to be of the democratic stripe have set up two sets of rules, and a list of talking points to buttress them. They apply one set to themselves and their friends; and apply the other set to everyone else.

As history continually writes itself, the sets must continually be refreshed which means that new opinions must continually be generated to serve as a basis for the making of new rules and new talking points. This is where the opinion makers come in handy, whatever their stripe. They generate a mass of opinions spanning the spectrum from one end to the other. This gives the aids of political leaders all sorts of material to work with. They formulate an argument to describe their stance on the issues of the day, and formulate an opposite argument to describe the stance of the opponents.

In America, the opinion makers, the political leaders and their staff learn to play the game with domestic issues before playing it on the international stage. For example, if a Democrat is in the White House and he opts for deficit spending, those of the stripe will say that deficit spending is good for the economy, and will unleash a list of talking points to justify their stance. In the meantime, those who profess to be of the Republican stripe will say that deficit spending is bad, and use a contrarian set of talking points to buttress their argument. This situation remains the order of the day till a Republican gets elected to the White House, and the roles are reversed.

A similar game is played on the international stage by more seasoned operators, but they play it with a slight difference. Since the chances are slim that today's foes will be tomorrow's friends, the foes will be so labeled for life, and the friends will be so labeled for life. There will be a set of rules and talking points to apply with the friends, and there will be a set to apply with the foes. The Americans see nothing wrong dealing with the world in such manner; the world sees a double standard, and deeply resents it. This should tell you why America is doing so badly on the international scene.

A recent article you can look at has the title: “Egypt's New Strongman, Sisi knows Best.” It was written by David D. Kirkpatrick and published in the New York Times on May 25, 2014. It is a remarkable article because the journalist is making a genuine effort to dampen his stereotyping impulses in order to write a normal article, not one of those propaganda pieces which the New York Times uses to distort the image of Egypt. However, you can tell that the title of the article, being the only passage that is savagely stereotypical, must have been written by the editors of the Times who still live in the Dark Ages.

Despite his effort to get away from this kind flimsy reporting, Kirkpatrick could not overcome the tendency to write the following: “His [Sisi's] move into the presidential palace will return Egypt to the rule of a paternalistic military strongman.” What on Earth gives this journalist the right to speculate on something that has not happened, writing an article that is not an opinion piece?

And where he could have helped the readers understand the meaning of what he was reporting, he failed to do so because it would have entailed the association of Sisi's temperament with that of Margaret Thatcher, the late Prime Minister of Britain who dared her people to start working hard so as to make their country a first-class nation again. Here is the passage that Kirkpatrick reported on but left without explanation: “You want to be a first-class nation?” he asked of Egyptians. “Will you bear it if I make you walk on your feet? When I wake you up at 5 in the morning every day? Will you bear cutting back on food, cutting back on air-conditioners?”

Nor was this the only time that Sisi spoke of working hard and making sacrifices to build a better country. He did so when he shouted at a group of young doctors urging them “to work harder for less.” And did it again in a television interview when he promised Egyptians: “I will not sleep and neither will you. We must work, night and day, without rest.” And he encapsulated his temperament with the following: “People think I'm a soft man. Sisi is torture and suffering.”

Where Kirkpatrick could not have done better than he did because he is too young to remember the Nasser era, and because he is too misinformed by the torrent of toxic propaganda that has been unleashed on Egypt over a period of six decades – is where he writes about the current plan to deal with the vast desert areas of the country. He describes the Nasser economy as having been state dominated, which is what “set the stage for six decades of stagnation,” he says.

He goes on: “He [Sisi] has proposed … to irrigate and give away vast areas of desert.” What Kirkpatrick does not realize is that building the Aswan dam, and the agrarian reforms that followed were the glory of the Nasser era, and the engine of growth that propelled Egypt into the industrial age where, despite all the negatives that befell the country, Egypt managed to build an economy so diversified and so resilient, it kept registering positive growth during a two-year revolutionary period that also coincided with times so bad, most of the world was going into negative territory. That's a 60 years achievement almost unparalleled in history thanks to the foundation that was put down by a man called Kaissouni, a minister in the Nasser cabinet.

Oblivious of that history and of the current realities, Kirkpatrick says that the Egyptian economy now teeters close to the brink without explaining what that means because he cannot. It is that the economy is neither on the brink nor teetering around anything. The author also reports on the ongoing debate in the country regarding the subsidies employed to keep the price of energy low. He does that without telling of the measures that have been taken, and are improving the situation already. And he tells of the package of loans and grants that Egypt has received from the Arab countries ($12 billion in total which he exaggerated to $20 billion) without putting that in perspective. It is that America borrows not only from friends but also from rivals $12 billion dollars every 6 days.

In short, contrary to what Kirkpatrick is insinuating, Sisi wants to maximize the efficiency of the state bureaucracy by reducing it, not by expanding it. He was drafted by the Egyptian people whom he calls the “ultimate authority” to serve them; and they see him, according to a political scientist, as being “soft and sweet, as if he is flirting with a beautiful woman.”

That's not being paternalistic; it's a love affair between a people and their soon to be President.

America's Place in a World that is reshaping

As it happens during the metamorphosis of some species, the world is molting at this time, and shedding its old skin to replace it with a new one. The parts of the body are still there, but they will take different forms, and will be given new functions to fulfill. America is one of these parts, and the question being debated is what new form will it take, and what new functions will it fulfill?

There are as many opinions on this subject as there are debaters, of course, but two trends seem to emerge which, between them, seem to encapsulate most of those opinions. Articles are published all the time in the daily, weekly and monthly publications, and two of them stand this week as being representatives of the two major trends. One article was written by Charles Krauthammer, and it may be called the neocon view; the other was written by Vali R. Nasr, and it comes closest to representing the mainstream American view.

The Krauthammer article comes under the title: “Vladimir Putin Pivots to Asia” and the subtitle: “Russia's new energy deal with China undoes the Kissinger-Nixon achievement.” It was published on May 22, 2014 in national Review Online. The Nasr article comes under the title: “A Great-Power Outage” and was published on May 24, 2014 in the New York Times.

Reading the articles, you come out with the sense that in general, the neocon view is a religious belief based on the principle that the fate of humanity has been preordained by God the Almighty since the beginning of time. It regards “our side” as being the good side; one that is locked in a struggle against the bad guys for dominance over the planet. They believe that God is on our side which is why we shall triumph in the end. In the meantime, however, there are those among us – such as our leaders – who do not understand that their role is to fight for the ultimate goal of total victory regardless of the cost in life and treasure.

As to the mainstream view, it parallels the pragmatic attitude that as a nation, you must take life as it comes. Unless you are threatened physically in which case you fight back to defend yourself, you do not take anything as being exclusively yours until you have earned it. And you do that by competing against the other powers for what you want in life. You compete mindful of the rules that forbid you from stepping on someone else's toes lest you provoke them needlessly and get into a fight that can bleed you or that can kill you.

The neocon approach, being at its core a superstition more than it is a true religion; it regards each and every happening as being a sign that proves the validity of the Jewish view as to what the natural order of things ought to be. Thus, Krauthammer considers the gas deal between Russia and China as another sign and a proof that the preordained order which guided our good side to pull off the Kissinger-Nixon achievement has been violated by the bad guys who must now be treated like mortal enemies.

The problem, however, according to the superstition, is that our leaders have allowed their leaders to secure “a spectacular energy deal” which demonstrates how “defiant” Putin has become of the natural order of things, making a “mockery of U.S. boast to have isolated Russia.” And that, in the view of the neocons is what makes “Obama's own vaunted pivot to Asia” an embarrassment. And why is that? Because “the Obama foreign-policy team [does not] understand what is happening.”

At this point, Krauthammer pulls a typical Jewish trick. He paves the way for advocating what used to be called the 19th-century gun-boat diplomacy by accusing the other side of practicing it. He begins by calling the old-style diplomacy “balance-of-power maneuvering,” then discusses the recent history of the world in a manner that suits his purpose before making a recommendation. But mindful of the reputation that the neocons have acquired, he first seeks to tone down the hawkish feel of what he is about to recommend.

He does that by reassuring the readers that his aim is “not a fight to the finish, but a struggle for dominion and domination.” This done, he makes his recommendation in a roundabout way. Having accused Obama of retreating, he now says: “The retreat is compounded by Obama's proposed massive cuts in defense spending … even as Russia is rearming and China is creating a sophisticated military soon capable of denying America access to the waters of the Pacific Rim.” In plain English, this means America must engage into an arms race with both Russia and China no matter the cost, and regardless of the responses that such decision will trigger on the other side.

And this is what is so much at odds with the mainstream American view as presented by the Nasr article. Here, the author begins by admitting that Putin did something that is unusual, unexpected and dangerous: “It has opened a window on a dangerous confusion among the four leading power centers of the globe.” But rather than respond in a knee-jerk fashion thus aggravate the situation, Nasr explains: “each power center interprets the goals and instruments of strategy – power politics or economic interdependence – differently.”

He does not minimize the inherent danger in the current situation, and reinforces that view by asking a series of questions for which there are no immediate answers. But there is one certainty in all of this, he says; it is that: “Europe is putting commercial interests above security interests, and that puts it at odds with American policy.” But does that mean America now relies or indeed, should rely on a military response while Europe is looking only at economic pressure as a means to change the behavior of Russia?

No, Vali Nasr seems to say, it is that both are using economics as a strategy to pressure Russia except that each has developed a different variation of the strategy. Whereas the Europeans, led by Germany “fear more that Russia could make their energy supplies uncertain and expensive,” Nasr views America's grand strategy as pivoting the attention toward Asia “which could account for two-thirds of global gross domestic product by 2025.”

To end his presentation, he relies on historical perspectives and explains the confusion that exists between the strategies of the four power centers: America, Europe, Russia and China. This done, he comes up with his own ultimate recommendation, which is the following: “This is no time to pivot to Asia so completely [where] America has interest in managing Russian ambitions – an interest that now demands a rebalancing of American foreign policy, back to paying primary attention to Europe.”

Nasr is not being more specific than that but his assertion that a decade from now, two-thirds of the world GDP will be concentrated in Asia, means that the rest of the world will command the remaining one third. It also means that the combined economic power of America and Europe will be less than half that of Asia. And this is no time for America to get engaged in an arms race that will do to America what America did to the old Soviet Union: provoke its bankruptcy.

Thus, America has the choice of metamorphosing into an important part of the butterfly that will fly high the American way, or it will take on he shape of a worm that will fall into the mud below where it will wallow the Jewish way till an early bird gets it and swallows it for breakfast.

The perpetual Wheel of Misfortune

Anyone that is moderately familiar with science would have heard of the perpetual motion machine; something that can never be built because it would violate one of the most fundamental laws of physics. But for several centuries before the principles of thermodynamics were formulated at the end of the nineteenth century, the idea of a perpetual motion machine preoccupied many minds as well as their time. But now that the idea has been discarded, and no one tries to build such a machine, the concept has transformed into a metaphor that is used to describe the never ending efforts of someone that never stops doing the useless thing.

An example of that is the effort of the Jews to gain control of all of Palestine by sabotaging the moves made by the Palestinians to bring an end to the status quo. So far, the Palestinians have tried to come to an equitable arrangement with the Israelis or, failing this, to take their case for arbitration before an international body that would be free of direct Jewish influence or the influence of America which is shaped by the Jewish lobby.

And so, having exploded a thousand volcanoes of the belly as they howled their outrage at Secretary of State John Kerry for trying to revive the peace process in a way that is even-handed, you see the Jewish leaders come around and say that the peace process need not end here. They came up with suggestions that basically say to America: use your power and influence to (1) freeze the Palestinians where they are, (2) fend off the other powers, especially the Europeans, who will surely try to interfere, (3) supply Israel with money and weapons, (4) make Israel's talking point your own and run around the world amplifying them, (5) put pressure on the Palestinians to hand Palestine to the Jews, and (6) put pressure on the Arab countries to pressure the Palestinians to accept the new “old” Jewish suggestions.

You can see all this in two recent articles, one written by an Israeli; the other by an American Jewish leader. The first came under the title: “A New Plan for Peace in Palestine” and the subtitle: “Dismantle the security barrier in the West bank. Let most Palestinians who live there govern themselves.” It was written by Naftali Bennett who is Israel's minister of the economy. It was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 21, 2014. The second article came under the title: “Open a Middle Road to Mideast Peace” and was written by Dennis Ross who once pretended to represent America's views while negotiating peace in the Middle East, but was in reality more Jewish than the Pope is Catholic. His article was published in the New York Times on May 23, 2014.

Bennett calls his concoction “Stability Plan” which he says can be achieved when “Israel allow[s] Palestinians complete freedom of movement, which requires removing all roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank.” Not realizing what he is divulging, the Israeli minister is saying that in Israel, they always knew what the world has been telling them mainly that the roadblocks and checkpoints are a major source of instability in the region.

But that's not all because there is also the matter of what he calls the security barrier; a construction that the world has called the “apartheid wall.” Of this, Bennett says: “In particular, Israel should dismantle the security barrier erected throughout the last decade.” So you want to know why the Israelis erected it in the first place, and what they think of it now. Bennett speaks his mind on both these issues in a roundabout way that betrays the true motives of the Israelis.

He says that the excuse at the time was to “defend against Palestinian attacks during the Second Intifada.” But the Intifada took only days to exhaust itself whereas the building of the apartheid wall took a decade to complete. And this says that the Israeli minister is now admitting what the world has been saying, mainly that the wall was erected to separate the peoples and to render impossible the creation of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state. This means they were planning to maintain the Palestinians in a walled ghetto as second class citizens in what used to be their own country.

If this was their excuse then, what is the excuse they prepare for the future? Bennett tells what that is: “Many Israelis credit the barrier with the dramatic increase in security over the past decade … The remarkable drop in terror happened thanks to high-quality intelligence coupled with Israel's ability to conduct targeted military operations in the West Bank.” In other words, he says that Israel will want America to keep supplying it with helicopters and smart bombs to continue bombing Palestinian families as they sleep in their bedrooms at night. And to be sure that the military operations will be conducted without opposition, they want a Palestine that remains demilitarized, which means undefended, innocent and helpless.

He goes on to say: “Israel can now stay secure without the barrier.” But being the Jew that he is, he must get paid for suggesting he would reduce the savagery of his never-ending rape of the defenseless. How does he do that? This is how: “This will prove especially true if the Israeli government works with the international community to promote Palestinian economic development.” In other words, he says the world must pay the Israeli government that will then pretend to use the money to promote Palestinian development.

This is the new Israeli plan that Dennis Ross has seconded, sitting as he does in the Washington, D.C. area. He begins his article with this: “the administration should declare that it is not walking away from the conflict.” To this end, John Kerry should declare the following: “I will focus on conflict management, instead of conflict resolution.”

In other words, he says let the Israelis maintain the perpetual wheel of misfortune in motion, and use America's power and influence to (1) freeze the Palestinians where they are, (2) fend off the other powers, especially the Europeans, who will surely try to interfere, (3) supply Israel with money and weapons, (4) make Israel's talking point your own and run around the world amplifying them, (5) put pressure on the Palestinians to hand Palestine to the Jews, and (6) put pressure on the Arab countries to pressure the Palestinians to accept the new “old” Jewish suggestions.

Here we go again.

The Philosophy behind fair Taxation

Writing in the prestigious business publication, Forbes Magazine, George Leef makes it clear he does not like the way that the conservative critics of Thomas Piketty's book have argued their case against his theory; one that favors raising more taxes on the rich.

Before elaborating, Leef made his point succinctly with this one sentence: “Rather than going after Piketty's numbers, we need to go after his philosophy.” All this comes in the article he wrote under the title: “Piketty's Book – Just another Excuse For Legal Plunder and Expanding The State,” published on May 21, 2014.

In going after Piketty's philosophy of raising more taxes on the rich, Leef begins the presentation by telling the readers that “Piketty's countryman Frederic Bastiat coined the perfect term for that more than 150 years ago, [he] called it 'legal plunder.'” This done, he starts his own argument by agreeing with Bastiat. He then goes further and attributes the motive of envy and resentment to the people who wish “to see the successful pulled down and their wealth redistributed to themselves.”

This is where you stop for a moment to reflect on what Frederic Bastiat meant when he pronounced himself in the manner that he did more that 150 years ago. Well, there was no central bank then, and there was no printing of fiat money to represent the wealth of the nation. Also, the income that someone received was measured by the amount of goods and the pieces of silver or gold that was given to them in exchange for their services. As to the wealth that the family had accumulated, it was largely made of real estate and goods such as the number of live animals, artifacts and pieces of precious metals that the family had to its name.

Given that no one could be wealthier than the amount of real estate and tangible goods in the entire jurisdiction, there was a natural limit as to how much wealth someone could accumulate over a lifetime. More importantly, there was no mechanism by which the earnings or the wealth of the people who toiled in the fields, the mines and the factories could be spirited away from them and given to those who did little or noting to earn it. This kind of mechanism was created with the establishment of the central bank and with the printing of money. It could happen now because every dollar that the central bank printed and gave to someone enriched that someone by diminishing the value in the hands of everyone else. It is a mechanism we now know will create inflation if and when it is abused.

As the way we live has changed from being essentially rural to essentially urban, and as industry began to make products that were never dreamed of during previous generations, the creation of wealth was now measured by more than the people needed to have in order to buy the bare necessities of life such as food, clothing and lodging. Wealth now extended to the kind of leisure and entertainment that people bought and enjoyed. Thus, the amount of printed money that someone was paid, and the amount of wealth they had accumulated took on a significance not known in the days of Frederic Bastiat.

Printing money and handing it to some people amounted to transferring the wealth from those who made it by producing the underlying goods and services to those who handled the money but did little or nothing to create it. And the taxation that may have looked like legal plunder to Bastiat more than a 150 years ago, now looks like a legitimate way to attenuate the immoral transfer of wealth from those who make it by toiling in the fields, the mines and the factories to those who enjoy it by consuming the kind of leisure and entertainment not known even to the idle nobility in Bastiat's times.

Another thing that George Leef ignores in his article is that the money which gets into the hands of those who do not create the underlying wealth gets in those hands because of the inventions and the innovations that were dreamed up by the people who left it for the benefit of all mankind. Thus, the people who get wealthy because automated machines make more products than ever before, because airplanes can fly them to exotic places around the globe, and because the leisure and entertainment products they make are duplicated and sold to millions of people – must understand that paying taxes comes down to paying royalty for the modern way of life which they exploit, a way that is the property of the entire human race and not theirs alone.

When all this will be understood by the likes of George Leef and transmitted to others, those who are asked to pay more taxes will feel better paying them.

The Newton-said, Einstein-said great Debate

Every human progress that was made came about because someone said something, and another one said something else. For example, Newton said that time was absolute, and formulated a great hypothesis that worked under certain conditions. Then came Einstein and said that time was variable, and formulated a great hypothesis that worked under Newton's conditions, as well as a wider set of conditions.

That was a he-said, she-said kind of debate across time that was a good one. On the other hand it can happen that a car standing in a driveway is damaged by a scratch that extends from end to end. Since only kids were seen playing in the neighborhood at the time, they were asked if they knew who did it, and they said they did not. The parents were then asked and their responses made it clear it was going to be a matter of he-said, she-said. This would have been a bad kind of debate.

The conclusion we draw from these two examples is that the phenomenon we call “he-said, she-said” is one that belongs to the human species only. And like everything else, it can be used to good ends; and can be used to dubious ends. But the very fact that it can be used to dubious ends does not mean it can be trashed. To do so would stifle a debate by cutting out one side of it. This will make of the side that remains a dogma to be believed on faith as if it were a religion.

And this happens to be the current epic battle; one that is conducted on a planetary scale between those who wish to preserve the right of human beings to conduct free debates, and those who wish to regulate debate for the purpose of steering it in the direction that suits their purposes. The first regard debate as the endowment bequeathed to humans for the purpose of advancing the achievements of the species; the second do all they can to trash free debate so as to monopolize the marketplace of ideas and turn their causes into dogmas to be believed religiously by all of humanity.

You can see one such attempt by reviewing the article that came under the title: “The Holocaust is not a he-said, she-said debate” written by Michael Gerson and published in the Washington Post on May 19, 2014. Gerson is not a Jew, but the Washington Post is heavily influenced by Jewish thinking therefore advances Jewish causes at the expense of everything else. One such cause being the transformation of the Holocaust into a construct that is complete with religious level dogmas to be believed without question by all of humanity, you see the author trash the very concept of debate by associating it with the he-said, she-said style of human give and take, and then belittling the latter by trivializing it.

Gerson begins the article by telling the touching story of a man who survived the Holocaust to become a grandfather, and viewing this happening as a personal triumph over a Hitler that tried to exterminate him. That's fine. There are many people in this world who beat tremendous odds, and survived to beget children, even dynasties after that. Their stories should be told for their human value, however, not used as a prop as it was done in this case.

And what was done in this case is use an event to which all human beings can relate in order to attain a goal from which any and every human being would recoil the moment they understand what is being pulled on them. And this goal is to use every insidious trick known to man so as to advance the notion that whereas there exist equivalences among all subject matters relating to human beings, there is no such equivalence when it comes to matters relating to Jews.

That approach has been the Jewish way to truncate the other side of the debate, leaving only their side to take on the force of a religious dogma. Throughout time, people have gone along at first with this Jewish sort of approach to every subject in which a Jew or his surrogate were engaged. But when people discovered what they were being dragged into, they became Hitlers at heart no matter where they were on this planet and no matter when that was since the beginning of time.

And for Michael Gerson, who is not a Jew, to have written the article the way he did, makes you suspect he is not all that innocent in this matter. Just look at the following three quotations and ask yourself if he is trying to do the Jews a favor or trying to speed up their day of reckoning in North America:

First, there is this: “The assumption of two-sidedness when considering the Holocaust is positively dangerous.”

Second, there is this: “The argument requires a morally offensive false equivalence.”

Third, there is this: “In this case, the assertion of two-sidedness is a victory for one side.

You must conclude that Gerson is either a fool or an incubator of little North American Hitlers who will grow up to make the original Hitler look like a toy soldier.

I would not have been offended

Here again, I find myself breaking the promise I made to myself that I shall not respond to something Bret Stephens writes for at least two months no matter how offensive will be what he writes from now until then. The thing, however, is that while the intent behind what he wrote in his latest column may have been to offend some people – as he makes it clear – it did not offend me. The column comes under the title: “To the Class of 2014” and the subtitle: “Students who demand emotional pampering deserve intellectual derision.” It was published on May 20, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.

Let me begin by telling a story that will explain where I stand with regard to being offended by one thing or another. I was taking a part-time course in the decade of the nineteen sixties with a professor who was also running to be a member of parliament. He had a thirteen year old son who let his hair grow to the shoulders, and would not trim it despite the fervent pleas from his parents who worried that his appearance may sink the chances of the father to get elected. Of course, boys, even grown men let their hair grow to the shoulders nowadays, and no one gets offended by their appearance. The moral of this story is that what is offensive today may not be tomorrow.

Having lived through many cultural changes where the bearable became offensive, and the offensive became bearable, I learned to tolerate many of the things that other people find offensive. Thus, none of the insults that are thrown at the country of my birth or the one I have adopted bother me unless the insults are meant to distort the truth for the purpose of advancing an illegitimate agenda. For example, an insult that tells a lie about Egypt for the purpose of punishing the country would anger me. Likewise, an insult that tells a lie about the healthcare system in Canada for the purpose of attacking the system in America would also anger me.

It is for similar reasons that I get angry at the Jewish moves by which they make a cottage industry of being offended by the things that diminish the gains they make at the expense of the gullible entities they court. For example, they will call you antisemitic if you criticize Israel; and they will explain that to say Israel is to say Jewish, therefore to criticize Israel is to insult the Jews for who they are … and this is antisemitic. But then if someone they don't like runs for office and speaks of the Jewish lobby instead of the Israeli lobby, they call him antisemitic because he stands accused of not differentiating between Israel and the Jews. The truth is: these people get offended coming and going because they plan to get compensated coming and going. This is how they live; it is what they do to earn a living.

Over a period of four decades, they meticulously put together a comprehensive roster of Jewish sensitivities, and built a network with which to infiltrate the North American institutions of higher learning. Using these two as tools to implement a heretofore hidden agenda, they went after the Jewish and non-Jewish professors who rejected their roster of sensitivities, and shunned their network. They purged many of them, denied tenure to others and convinced a number of university administrators to ban the use of expressions like Israeli apartheid on campus.

This done, they took their success to Europe, mostly Britain, where they tried to duplicate the success there too. Luckily, they made the mistake of appointing the notorious Alan Dershowitz to lead the drive to conquer Britain. Once over there, the locals – Jews and non-Jews alike – took one look at him, and told him to turn around and get the hell out of there before someone decides to do serious damage.

The word spread in North America as to what happened in Britain, and those who did not know how to handle the situation previously knew what to do now. They told the likes of Dershowitz and the administrators who banned the use of the expressions that offended the forever-displeased Jews to go to hell because they now have their own agenda ... though not a hidden one; and they have a roster of sensitivities they want the whole world to know about.

And no one is going to stop them because to do so means to stop the likes of Dershowitz and the administrators who would ban what offends the Jews … which is what they themselves are doing now. Neat huh!

And so, while I would not have been offended by the Bret Stephens attempt to offend me, I would have marveled at the unfolding drama the same way that I marveled at the tension created by the standoff between my professor and his son more than 40 years ago.

Changing Rules in the Middle of the Game

There are times when it becomes necessary to change the way that we look at something; and there are times when the attempt to do so takes on the allure of changing the rules in the middle of the game. Even science – which is the most exact of the disciplines – is never definitive about anything because it recognizes that a theory that works for now may only be a part of a larger theory that will eventually be formulated when new instruments will make it possible to take more accurate measurements.

And given that economics remains one of the least exact of the disciplines, it stands to reason that people should want to modify the way they look at aspects of it when new information surfaces that seems to affect the way the system works. The problem is that unlike science which can usually be verified with an experiment, economics can only rely on statistical data that must be interpreted, therefore can be subjected to opinions that are bound to be colored by the prejudices of the interpreters.

And this is what has been happening lately when it came to measuring the wealth of different entities for the purpose of comparing the well being of groups of people living in the same jurisdiction, or comparing the well being of nations that follow different cultures while adhering to different political and/or economic systems.

It so happened that an arm of the World Bank conducting a survey called International Comparison Program issued its latest report, one that turned the figures for Africa upside down. Whereas South Africa was thought to be the largest economy on the Continent, it turned out to be number three after Egypt that was classified as number one by a wide margin, and Nigeria as number two. When you think that based on false information, South Africa – and not Nigeria or Egypt, or indeed any Arab country – was invited to join the G-20; you wonder what kind of dirty politics played a role in this selection.

You can get a taste of the games that people play manipulating statistical data to score political points. This time, the opportunity is presented in the form of an article by Neil Gilbert who wrote it under the title: “The Denial of Middle-Class Prosperity” and the subtitle: “Government data show that average disposable income has increased across all income groups since 1979.” It was published on May 17, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.

You can see the author establish the rules of the game early on to make it easy to present the arguments he has already formulated in his head. He begins by brushing aside the “countless reports” that “claim the middle class is being crushed by inequality, declining mobility and diminishing income.” He asserts that the middle class are better off than they were 30 years ago, and they live better than their counterparts in other places. This is something that was never done before in a country that used to consider itself so exceptional; it could not be compared to anyone else.

To make his point, Gilbert dismisses the research which he says is showing the middle-class stagnation because it looks at market incomes which exclude, among other things “government transfers … It overlooks the welfare state's enormous power to redistribute income.” What? Hold it buddy. Say it again. Are you saying that the marketplace would have left the middle-class in a state of stagnation if not for the welfare state that redistributed the income, gave the middle-class equality, an upward mobility and a rising income? The Left must be dancing and singing Halleluiah, welcome into the body of believers, ye blessed convert to our cause! But tell me, who else is talking like you? Is it Martin Feldstein? Yes it is. Look what he wrote lately.

Writing about Thomas Piketty who says that capitalism will lead to an increasing inequality of income and wealth, Feldstein who is an icon of the conservative movement wrote: “Picketty's comparing the income of top earners with total national income has another flaw. National income excludes the value of government transfer payments including Social Security, health benefits and food stamps that are a large and growing part of the personal incomes in low- and middle-income households.” He made that comment in the article he wrote under the title: “Piketty's Numbers Don't Add Up” and the subtitle: “Ignoring dramatic changes in tax rules since 1980 creates the false impression that income inequality is rising.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 15, 2014. Hey, look here my friend; they all say the same thing: Big government is necessary to achieve the equality that market income alone would have eroded.

Not realizing what image he is painting, Gilbert goes on to explain that the Congressional Budget Office has demonstrated how the tendency to the effect that the rich could have gotten richer at the expense of the poor, and that the Middle class could have stayed the same during the past three decades – was rectified with the tax regime and the social benefits brought about by big government.

The net result is that these people tried to change the rules of the game in the middle of it, but have managed only to cement the idea that a government big enough to stand up to big business will always be necessary to even out the playing field.