I can no longer stay silent on this Issue

Writers must not speak of the issues that involve them personally. This is usually done by others, and usually done after they die. But a straw has broken my camel's back, and I feel duty bound to reveal something that's known to many – Sam Donaldson being one, I am told. It is something that has gotten so extreme, it evolved into a whole new ball game that must be stopped before it gets worse and causes yet another calamity.

The purported scandal that is brewing about analysts at the Pentagon altering reports, and the brouhaha about the Planned Parenthood issue did not happen naturally or by accident; they were engineered by the noise-making unit of the Jewish propaganda machine. To understand how the Jews in charge of these matters decide on what to do next, we need to know something about their mentality.

These people believe that it is their divine right not to be reproached by a non-Jew for anything they do or fail to do. They take offense when criticized even for something they readily acknowledge they did wrong when talking among themselves. But when the thing is revealed by a non-Jew, they feel that an imbalance has been created, and that the balance must now be restored.

They do the restoration by lashing out at someone; and it does not matter who that someone is. What matters is that the target they hit provides them with an opportunity to approximate the damage that was done to their cause by the revelation. And guess what, my friend, America has often been the punching bag that took the hits and never punched back.

That Jewish mentality is always active and always relentless. When I mentioned not long ago that the Jews fabricated the evidence about the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq to get America involved in the war that broke its back, the operators of the noise machine contacted their running dogs in America who contacted a second layer of dogs at the Pentagon who contacted a third layer of dogs in the media who lined up the snitches and the reporters that turned a non-event into an inflated story about intelligence reports being altered to serve the political agenda of a White House they hate even more than they hate the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt.

And when I mentioned at another time that the Israelis harvest the internal organs of the Palestinian kids they shoot to kill when killing serves no other purpose, the Jews of the noise machine organized the acquisition of material which they doctored into something that looks and sounds as if America was doing the same thing to its own babies.

And this was enough for them to invoke the Alan Dershowitz doctrine which says that Israel has the right to do to the Palestinians what anyone has done to someone in the past, or is currently doing to someone anywhere in the world. Based on this, the Jews are now justifying to themselves and to those who would listen to them – the killing of Palestinian kids to harvest their internal organs and sell them for a profit.

This was the straw that broke the camel's back and forced me to make these revelations at this time even though I had learned about the practice decades ago when I was told that Sam Donaldson got so angry at one time, he tried to break the story but was told not to by his bosses who must have been Jews, I have no doubt.

Three Americans were killed and nine more were hurt as a result of the fake story concerning Planned Parenthood that the Jews fabricated to serve their ill-defined purpose. And there is no way to guess how far the fake story concerning the Pentagon intelligence reports, will go if allowed to progress. How many more will die in America and abroad? How much damage will be caused to someone's infrastructure? How many will flee their homes and become refugees? The Jews don't care. I do.

I can no longer stay silent because I do not want to be accomplice in the crimes against humanity that the Jews are committing when they kill people in response to my exercising the right to speak freely … while observing the etiquette of keeping myself out of the picture.

This is no longer working because nothing that is normal works with a Jewish culture that was fashioned to be a freakish disease meant to plague the human race. Come out of it too, America. It s time to tell the Jews enough is enough.

How to adjudicate a complex Dispute

Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article that is puzzling, coming as it did from someone of his caliber. Published on November 26, 2015 in National Review Online, the article came under the long title of: Progressive Faculty and Administrators Deserve All of the Blame for the Recent Unrest on Campus.

The point that Hanson is making – and illustrating with numerous historical examples – is that the adoption of liberal ideals breads the kind of radicals who turn against the liberals for not being radical enough. And this, he says, is what's happening at this time on America's campuses.

He expands on those ideas and comes to the following conclusion: Professors have privileged diversity over unity. Faculties focused on America's sins than its virtues. Both fixated on color of skin rather than content of character. The curriculum was watered down, standards were lowered and students appeased. Now they are reaping the liberal whirlwind that they alone have sown.

Had he written a short blog citing those historical examples, and had he gone from there to make the conclusion that he did, he would have written a praiseworthy piece. Unfortunately, however, he chose to go further than that and ventured into a realm where his analytic prowess fell short of his historical acumen. Sadly, this is what turned his work into a puzzle of dubious quality.

Here is the point at which he first got on the wrong track: “Will the University of California at Berkeley airbrush away the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy?” With this step, he opened the door for himself to wonder about the fate of other historical figures; people like FDR, Che Guevara, Margaret Sanger, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Robespierre, Trotsky, Lenin, Bill Ayers and Jonathan Butler – all of whom are either reviled or cherished by today's radicals.

The problem with taking that approach to discuss a situation of this nature, is that the approach contributes nothing toward the clarification of the subject matter or its solution – if solution is what's required. A better approach would have been to separate what constitutes legitimate demands made by the students, from what constitutes illegitimate demands. To this end, Victor Hanson could have set-up three rubrics under which the subject of equity would have been classified and given weight. The rubrics would have been these: proportionality, compromise and reversal.

An example in which proportionality determines who gets what is that of partners in a business who decide to break-up and go their separate ways. How to decide who gets what? To answer this question you take into account how much money each partner put into the company, and how much time each devoted to running it. Based on this, each partner will get an equitable portion of the business.

As to compromise, this is usually called for when there is no way to determine who was at fault in something like a traffic accident that has the markings of being an “Act of God.” In this case, the compromise takes the form of a 50-50 shared responsibility – which is the ultimate compromise. And the liabilities are shared accordingly.

Finally, there are cases in which a reversal is the equitable thing to call for. An example would be the reverse discrimination that the “Affirmative Action” program brings to each case. This approach is considered legitimate by most people as long as the intent and the implementation are considered restitution and not retribution.

That is acceptable because the descendents of those who lived at the expense of “others,” agree to forgo a few of the things they inherited so that the descendents of the “others” receive compensation for what their forefathers were deprived of, and had no chance to bequeath to their descendents. Justice is served this way.

With this under his belt, Victor Hanson could have looked at each item on the list of the grievances that were mentioned by the students, and determined under which rubric it should go. From there, he would have judged how to adjudicate each claim … and his judgment would have been wise and equitable.

Victor Hanson also wrote this: “The agendas of the leftist revolutionaries are usually incoherent … they seem [not to] offer a workable blueprint of reform.” Well, it is clear that Hanson himself has not done better.

Will it be Sykes-Picot 2 or Iraq 2?

Among the many nut cases roaming the world of American punditry, there seems to be at least one sane person, and he turned out to be not a professional pundit but a novelist and a military historian who engages in punditry only when he feels he must.

His name is Caleb Carr, and he wrote: “Let Europe lead the war in Syria,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “History counsels caution for American troops.” It was published in the New York Daily News on November 28, 2015. Not to mince words, Carr starts the article by making clear that “a proposed American-led ground action in Syria [is] potentially disastrous.”

He alone knows why he felt compelled to write that article at this time, but we can guess the reason when we look at the desolate landscape of punditry that extends before our eyes; a wasted vast land that must have cried out for Carr to tidy up and organize. To get a sense of how barren that landscape has been and still is, we may look at the Max Boot article that came under the title: “How to defeat ISIS,” published two days earlier in the Pittsburgh Tribune. Also, two days before the Boot article, there was the John Bolton dissertation that came under the title: “To Defeat ISIS, Create a Sunni State,” published in the New York Times.

While the Boot article is an invitation to repeat the tragedy that was the Second Iraq War, the John Bolton article is an invitation to repeat the tragedy that was the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Here is how Boot ends his article: “The U.S. needs to make clear its intent to topple Assad along with ISIS … Until that happens, the U.S. can continue to chip away at the edges of ISIS … This is an evil that cannot be contained. It must be defeated.”

This being what the Americans said about Saddam before invading Iraq and destroying it to topple him, we must expect that if America takes the Boot advice and tries to topple Assad, the calamity we see unfold in the Levant at this time will not only double; it will amplify exponentially.

As to the John Bolton dissertation, he starts it like this, “the basic question: What comes after the Islamic State?” And he sets out to answer it. He says that after determining what sort of governance will be good for the people of the region – without asking them – America must launch “a vigorous military campaign to destroy the Islamic State.” He later explains that for this to happen: “American ground combat forces will have to be deployed.”

This done, he wants the world to understand that “Iraq and Syria as we have known them are gone … emerging is a de facto independent Kurdistan … The best alternative to the Islamic State in Northeastern Syria and western Iraq is a new, independent Sunni State … It is Sunni-stan … This is not a democracy initiative but cold power politics.” What else could he have said that would have defined the epitome of cynicism more aptly?

But for that to happen, he goes on to say: “we and our allies must empower viable Sunni leaders.” It's not the ideal thing to do but the best that can be done under the circumstances. He explains: “Once, we might have declared a Jordanian 'protectorate' in an American 'sphere of influence'; for now, a new state will do.” In fact, this would have been the American way to duplicate and inflict the fateful Sykes-Picot Agreement on the region.

And so, we ask: Can the Bolton approach solve the problems of the Levant? Or will it repeat the old history, and pave the way for another regional calamity to plague the world a century from now? Bolton seems to try answering that question, but he does it in such ambiguous way, you can swear that a Jew must have been whispering in his ear.

Look what he actually says: “Turkey would enjoy greater stability, making the existence of a new state tolerable … The Kurds have finally become too big a force in the region … They still face enormous challenges, especially with Turkey. But an independent Kurdistan could work in America's favor.”

He could not have been more ambiguous than that. And he could not have been more myopic – looking as he does for a way to serve America in the midst of a tragedy of epic proportion.

And so, we quote Caleb Carr again with a passage that came near the end of his article: “The Muslim tribes of Syria and Iraq recall Sykes-Picot, just as they recall the Crusades, facts lost on American saber-rattlers.”

The Pattern is sadly the same but more craven

Two nations on Planet Earth currently live under colonial rule. They are Palestine and America, both of which suffer from the indignity of being governed by Jews without their consent.

The people of Palestine suffer because their freedom has been taken away through the physical restrictions imposed on them by military means. The people of America suffer because their freedom has been taken away through the political, cultural, psychological and financial restrictions imposed on them by legal and informational means, in addition to the traditional means of intimidation.

A great deal is known as to how the colonial powers used to enforce their rule on the people they victimized because this Planet has had a colonial history that lasted more than a century. In fact, many of the victimizing methods that were used then are used today in Palestine. This is true even if such methods were modified in ways that allow the Jews to be more genocidal than ever before, while giving themselves the opportunity to argue that the Palestinians are to blame for what happens to them.

When you ask what may have inspired those modifications, you get an answer from observing how the Jews maintain the people of America on a leash. It is that they discovered what methods work in America, and took those methods to Palestine, blending them with the ones they inherited from the old colonial powers. They enforced the infernal mix on the indigenous people of Palestine, giving this occupation the most hideous look to have ever revolted the entire population of the Planet.

Thus, beside the checkpoints, the travel restrictions and the collective punishments that the Jews inflict regularly on the Palestinians, they also practice the modern version of divide and rule which differs from the old version in that the colonized people are no longer divided along religious or ethnic lines but along ideological lines. You can see the effect of this method in the Federal and State congresses, for example.

These are places that remain paralyzed and neutralized because the various ideological factions were taught to get on each others' throat when the time to discuss the business of America is rung. They get back to normal; even go on a fast-track when the time to discuss the business of Israel and the Jews is announced.

Worse, that method is implemented not only in the legislatures of the nation, but also in the places where the Jews see benefit to themselves in dividing the American people, and ruling over them more tightly. One place they are currently trying to reconquer is the world of academe. You can see how they navigate their way in this area by reviewing the piece they wrote under the title: “The New Campus Dissenters,” an editorial that also came under the subtitle: “Not everyone is cowed by political intimidation at universities.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on November 27, 2015.

The subject they discuss is the turmoil that's now gripping the university campuses of America. Typical of what happens when the time is ripe to call for change, groups of students had demanded that the faculties and administrators of several colleges change their ways. The response, according to the editors of the Journal, was that “most have caved like wet cardboard.” Well, aside from the inappropriate language, there is nothing new in acceding to the demands of students. It happens all the time, everywhere, and will happen again and again.

But that's not how the Jewish editors of the Wall Street Journal saw things. To them, the most important development was that a group of students “dissented” from the ideas of their peers. Seeing an ideological crack among the students, the first thing that came to the mind of the Journal editors, was to exploit the phenomenon and help widen the crack instead of letting the campus drama play itself out – which is how things unfold normally everywhere in the world, absent a Jewish influence. But the Jews are in America, and they hunger to take control of academe … and so they divide in the hope that they will soon be able to conquer.

The way that the exploitative hands played the game this time was to call the dissenting students politically courageous, and do the most disgusting thing that a bunch of editors can do: they suggested that someone in a position of power might be tempted to abuse their power and punish the students. Look what the cowardly editors did: “The students signed their names, and we hope their professors don't dock their grades.”

What do they think professors are made of? The same kind of material as journalists?

What's the Judeo-Israeli Skin in that Game?

Most Americans and the rest of the world know by now that when the Jews say America, they do not mean the 320 million non-Jewish Americans; they mean the five million or so Jews who happen to live in America but leave their hearts in Israel, even if they never visited the place.

And because the Jewish religion is rigidly hierarchical, so it is with the entire culture. In fact, if this system were to change, there will be no Judaism, and the religion-cum-movement will have to be disbanded. It will be goodbye Zionism, and farewell Pax Americana. But while the system remains intact and in force, what America gets to control, becomes the property of the “elders” who sit at the top of the Jewish hierarchy and govern from there. In other words, what America manages to lead, gets to be led by the Jewish cabal that's perched at the top of the food chain.

Since the Jews think of themselves as teachers of everything … mandated by God to teach everyone, they see themselves as leaders of the world if not its owners. It is this idea which keeps a pilot flame in their bellies; a flame that erupts into a volcano every time the Jews see an opportunity for America to grab a piece of the world but fails to do so because the current President, Barack Obama, refuses to be their puppet the way that the former President, George W. Bush, had been.

You see how all this comes together when you read the article that came under the title: “The anti-ISIS coalition guarantees the chaos will spread,” written by Benny Avni and published on November 24, 2015 in the New York Post. In this piece, the author sheds tears at the start while speaking of President Obama, about whom he says this: “He won't lead that alliance [of world powers], though.”

To Benny Avni and to all the Jews, it means that the cabal will not get the chance to control the unfolding of events in the Middle East; a development that also means Avni will not have much of a say in this affair. And because he guesses that the Russians will not provide adult supervision to the coalition, he is upset that the Jews will not be there (through America) to do the duty they were mandated to fulfill by God Himself.

If by now, you have formulated an image of the world as being an oyster that's ready to be grabbed by Jewish America, except that President Obama is not doing what he is supposed to do to grab it, you'll become even more confused when you learn what else is going on in this realm.

Are you ready for it? Here it comes: “Obama has someone to lead behind, French President Francois Hollande,” says Benny Avni. Worse, “France won't commit ground troops to Syria,” he adds, and goes on to say that despite all this, “Obama keeps talking about how 'we' are united,” which prompts Avni to ask: “But who's 'we'?” So now, dear reader, are you really confused, or what?

If not, there is more that will surely confuse you. Here it is: “the allies that share our concern about ISIS – from France to Luxembourg and everyone in between – are committing the minimal amount of firepower. Like us, they bomb just enough to say we're doing something.” And that, my friend, is the name of the game: It is bomb, bomb, bomb.

Bomb is how the Jews measure success. They keep asking: How many sorties have the warplanes effectuated? And how many ordnance they returned with instead of dropping them on someone below? To this, Avni adds: “If a coalition is ever to work, it must have a power that will lead. But with no serious skin in the game, no one will see Obama as that leader.”

In other words, speaking for the Jewish cabal, Avni says that to be a good leader, you must have a skin in the game and lots of bombs in the storage hangars.

But the trouble with Obama, he explains, is that (1), the President is more interested in the antics of the Republican Party, (2), he is troubled by the income inequality in America and (3), he is anxious about climate change. This is not leadership, says Avni. To be a puppet of the Jews is the mark of a good and wise leader.

The Monkey-see Monkey-do super Adviser

Clifford D. May, who says he is president of the sick joke he calls Foundation for Defense of Democracies, gave himself a new job. It is that of advising the advisers to presidential campaigns, a position that conferred on him the title of super adviser.

Endowed with the powers he vested in himself – like the self-crowning emperor who could not find someone worthy enough to crown him – he volunteered to write a “Memo to presidential campaign advisers,” a submission he also subtitled: “What's in your national security briefing book?” and had it published on November 24, 2015 in the Washington Times.

No, he is not trying to explain why he will continue to inject moral syphilis into the heads, hearts and souls of young Americans by insisting that Israel is the best protector America has in the Middle East when, in reality, the thing scurries like a cockroach, and goes hiding inside the nearest crevice … something that Israel does every time that the going gets tough, and the tough get going without Israel.

No wonder these people talk the talk in a big way; but when it comes to walking the walk, they run away from the field where the action is unfolding, and start giving advice to America like the experts they never were and could never be. They did, regrettably, tell George W. Bush to de-baathify Iraq, a move that resulted in the horror that's now unfolding in the region … showing no end in sight and promising nothing close to that.

That was an advice they did not think through before giving it because it takes at least the IQ of a monkey to think at this level of comprehension, and this is a level that has eluded them since the beginning of time. What they are able to do, however, is find false lessons in the Jewish book of mutilated history, and tell the Americans to monkey-see monkey-do what will not work any better than did the invasion of Iraq. That being the fateful advice they gave to America, having maliciously asserted that Iraq was hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), devices that were meant to put a mushroom cloud into every sky, they said.

Thus, whereas America is now facing a situation that is nowhere near what Britain faced during WW II, or what it faced three decades ago, you see Clifford May advise presidential campaign advisers to tell their candidates they must demonstrate Churchillian resolve and Reaganesque confidence. When asked to be more specific, they recommend beefing up the military with more submarines, more surface ships, more bombers and more nuclear weapons … all that, they say, to go after suicidal kids who wear the dreaded exploding vests.

And when all those weapons will have been bought, paid for and put into service – manned as they will be with hundreds of thousands of new recruits that may have to be drafted into service – the people of America will know they are “secure in their homeland and safe in their homes” where no burglar, home-invader or terrorist will break-in and wake them up in the middle of the night. And this is a good reason why America must have all those submarines, ships, bombers, nuclear weapons, and the new recruits who will have been drafted.

And that's not all, says Clifford May, because to defeat those jihadi kids, America will need a new commander in chief, “one who [will] order the military, the intelligence community, the secretaries of state, Treasury, Justice, Energy, Homeland Security and other government agencies to present strategic options for getting that job done.” But Sir, do you hear me? … Hold it there, mister... What was that again? Say it again, Cliff.

Having advised the advisers what to advise their candidates, the super-adviser only now admits that he has no clue what he's talking about, and wants to see the election of a new president who will mobilize all those government agencies. He will ask them to come up with strategic options that neither he (Clifford May) nor Israel could come up with despite all the talk that they are the super-geniuses who will defend not only America but all the democracies.

How did all this come about, you want to know? It came about, he says, because: “We live not in a global village but a global jungle – and the law of the jungle operates.” Yes Sir. You can say that again, Clifford May. You have recognized it was a jungle because you looked in the mirror and saw a monkey stare at you in the face.

That's good because self-knowledge takes evolution a notch to a higher level.

The Flies are swarming a rising Spartacus

This discussion is about two American Jews, Dennis Prager and Bret Stephens, who did worse than lose the ability to shape events; they lost the moral compass that was the “North Star” guiding them to goals that may not have been universally accepted in the first place, but were at least well defined and easy to follow.

It would help the readers to understand the ideas brought into this discussion if they refresh their memory by reading an article I wrote under the title: “The Flies that buzz the Ether,” published in the month of February, 2011, and can be accessed by clicking the appropriate dates in the archive at the right side of this page.

Both Prager and Stephens express disappointment – as did dozens of other Jews – at the situation in which the American universities find themselves at this time. Both had their views published on November 24, 2015, each in a different publication. Prager wrote: “American Universities Begin to Implode,” appearing in National Review Online. As to Stephens, he wrote his Wall Street Journal column under the title: “Radical Parents, Despotic Children,” and the subtitle: “Sooner or later, Orwellian methods on campus will lead to Orwellian outcomes.”

These two are journalists, and my 2011 article was essentially about journalists who think they are so important, they act like the fly in la Fontaine's fable, “The Fly and the Stagecoach.” In that article, I also discuss American exceptionalism, making the connection between this concept and that of journalism. And now, a little more than four and a half years later, there is one more connection that can be made. To appreciate this point, we need to know who Spartacus was.

Legend has it that Spartacus was a gladiator in the Roman Empire who managed to escape the arena where slaves of his caliber were kept well, even pampered. He went to the camp where lesser slaves were doing hard work in the mines and the quarries. There, he organized them and helped them stage an uprising against the camp guards, and later against the mighty Roman Empire itself.

True or false, that legend can be thought of as a metaphor representing the situation in the America of the past half century. There may no longer be slaves in that country, but a metaphor does not need to be exact to shed light on a situation that needs clarification. Think of the original “pilgrims” who worked hard to build a nation, and then passed their ethics on to their descendants. The trouble is that the ethics eroded a little each time that they were transferred from one generation to the next.

In time, two things happened in America that led to the current situation. First, America discovered that to remain as exceptional as it was at the start, it had to import the exceptional children of other peoples because it could no longer produce exceptional children of its own. And then, the inevitable happened. Those foreign children – who may not be thought of as traditional slaves, but were still an underclass – decided to rebel. They said: enough with the white skins and the red necks setting the agenda for us who are diverse peoples, we deserve to be masters of our own destinies. And the university is the place where we should start working on that goal.

Second, America was taken over by the Jews who began life in that country as an underclass, but rose to become the top dog. And when the diverse peoples of the underclass began to rebel, they naturally rebelled against the Jews who were now in charge, and were setting the agenda for everyone. That rebellion is what brought fear and loathing to the hearts of the Pragers, the Stephens and others like them who, in the name of pluralistic democracy, decided to swarm and attack the multi-ethnic collective. Talking about Orwell?

To counter this trend, Dennis Prager founded a university in which they teach what suits him. He writes about that in his column once in a while, and from this writing, we conclude that Prager University is nothing more than a Madrassa of “higher” learning where the Muslim chant “There is no God but Allah” was replaced by the Jewish chant “There is no master but master Jew.”

As to Bret Stephens, he wants to see universities founded by the likes of Sheldon Adelson where the chant will most likely go something like this: “There is no good Palestinian like a dead Palestinian.”

A single individual representing the modern Spartacus may yet rise in America and lead the battle against the forces of darkness. But for now, the multi-ethnic collectives on the campuses play that role.

They wish to label everyone and study no one

What do the editors of the Wall Street Journal want? They are at the same time drawing contrasts aimed at differentiating between the genders, the races, the religions and the skin colors, and refusing to study the differences that may or may not exist between those groups.

Worse, they oppose the people in academia who wish to conduct such studies; their excuse being that this kind of studies will be a waste of time and money. And what is truly galling about their stance is that they do all that while discussing free speech, which they pretend to defend.

The editors of the Journal pack all those realities – at times deliberately; at times inadvertently – in the piece they wrote under the title: “A Campus Mayhem Syllabus” and the subtitle: “The grievance protests spread, and the adults keep rolling over,” which they published in the Journal on November 22, 2015.

By the time you get to the second sentence of the first paragraph, you learn in what mood these people were while expressing their thoughts. The following is what hits you in the face without warning, and wakes you to the reality of what was motivating them: “The grievances and demands vary, but the disease is the same: Faculty and administrators who elevate racial and gender diversity above all other values, including free speech.” They call a disease, the choice that was made by the people in charge. And that’s nothing less than a foul mood.

The fact that today's faculty and administrators were the students of yesteryear, gave the editors the opportunity to wax nostalgic in some places, in an effort to help them see things the way that the editors do. Here is an example: “In a better era she'd have won free beer on campus but this time, a student cursed out a sociologist for being 'insensitive.'” To those of us who remember that era vividly, the editors' tease has backfired. The reason is that calling others insensitive was the most potent tool in the hand of the Jews who used it to go from being a group forbidden to join the faculty of any college, to virtually owning the entire academic caboodle.

That editors' faux pas should lead us to anticipate that they will have no luck convincing anyone to fulfill their wish for them. And what they wish for is expressed in the form of a lament. It goes like this: “Yale President promised a center exploring 'race, ethnicity and other aspects of social identity' … He talked up Yale's $50 million commitment to diversifying the faculty.” That is going to happen, and the editors will not stop it.

Their disillusion with the current situation goes deeper still. That's because: “An estimated 100 campuses have joined the fun, all alleging systematic racial injustices … But most redolent of our times is Princeton University. Students insisted that the school expunge references to Woodrow Wilson because he supported segregation [having been] Princeton's president before he ascended to the White House … Current president agreed to kick off discussions about Wilson's legacy, among other concessions.”

Note the word “concession.” While the students and the president of the university consider that to discuss the legacy of a former president is a necessity that’s as sacred as to honor free speech, the editors of the Wall Street Journal consider kicking off that discussion to have been a bargaining chip the current president failed to use to the maximum in his give-and-take with the students.

It is apparent that the editors of the Journal caught the American disease of reducing everything, including free speech, to a commercial value. In their view, free speech has become an object that can be bought, sold and bartered like pork bellies or lumber on the commodities exchange.

But instead of seeing the oddity in what they, as journalists – together with the politicians – have done to America's system of democracy, the editors counsel the college presidents whom they accuse of capitulating easily, to reread Orwell. And they fail to see that the institutions of higher learning are the last line of defense standing between maintaining a system where ideas are exchanged freely and openly, and slipping into a system where people will be accused of things as trivial as denying the Holocaust and thrown in jail.

Finally, instead of counseling others to reread Orwell, the editors of the Wall Street Journal should themselves read Arab history. Unless they are trying to say that Arab Civilization is the same as Western Civilization, they better admit that it was the Arab Civilization and not the Western that produced the luxury of university life … also the modern hospital.

Jack the Ripper of the academic Free Speech

Suppose they catch a pyromaniac in the act of setting homes on fire, and then discover that he is employed as a firefighter. You would be dumfounded, would you not? Now suppose they install closed circuit television cameras around a college campus that is plagued by violent acts of rape. After a while, a brutal rape occurs, and the cameras show it was committed by the guy that's in charge of “Keeping the campus free of rape.” You would be stupefied, would you not?

Well then, let me tell you about a guy who qualifies to be called Jack the Ripper of the academic free speech, whining about the erosion of that freedom, having been himself the greatest ripper of them all … not only on one college campus, but across campuses all over America. And when this guy tried to take his loathsome habit across the pond to Britain, his own kinfolks – who viewed him as too much of a hypocrite to welcome in their midst – told him to pack his bags and get off the Island in a hurry … and he did.

His name is Alan Dershowitz, a notorious character whose crooked writings often became material that begged to be reviewed and exposed for what it is on this website. This time, he wrote: “Safe spaces for hypocrisy,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “The dangerous sensitivity double-standards at play on America's college campuses.” It was published on November 22, 2015 in the New York Daily News.

Bear in mind that this guy attacked the right to free speech not only on college campuses, but everywhere that free speech happened; especially of the kind that neglected to praise Israel and the Jews, or neglected to damn the call for the people of Palestine to be free of the long-running genocidal Jewish occupation of their country. His effort in this vein went as far as to “diss” a former President of the United States of America who had written a book on that same subject. Later, Dershowitz ran around the nation pounding his chest in triumph, as he revealed that he was the one who dissed the invitation issued to a former President to come and speak at an event organized by his political party.

Besides mounting numerous efforts of that kind in the political arena, Dershowitz went after the book publishers of the nation who dared to publish material that did not conform to his vision of a world that considers the Jews untouchable, and considers everyone else unworthy of praise. But the most spectacular of his offenses came when he went after the college professors who were so unwise as to exercise their right to free speech; doing so before they had acquired the right to be protected by tenure.

The most notorious case, among the many, in that realm was the success he scored in forcing a university to deny tenure to Professor Norman Finklestein, himself a Jew and a child of Holocaust survivors who did not believe that suffering the Holocaust gave them the right to do to others what was done to them. Dershowitz had the university deny Finklestein tenure because he stood up for the right of the Palestinian people.

With this success under his belt, Dershowitz went to Britain, and tried to convince the folks out there to duplicate what he was doing in America. This is when the well educated Jews of Britain (his kinfolks) told him in no uncertain terms to remove himself from their sight … and he did.

Look what this wretched bundle of hypocrisy is trying to do now. He begins his article by stating a fact: “Students protested to demonstrate against the vandalism of a Black Lives Matter display.” Following that, similar protests were staged on campuses across the country, and Dershowitz explains: “One demand has been to transform campuses into 'safe spaces,' where students are protected from physical violence.” This done, he begins to editorialize: “However, the safe spaces seem to matter only when the interests of those who share their political persuasions are affected.”

Pow! A damned lie! What you see here is a typically Jewish sleight of hand that turned a potentially civilized debate into the kind of toxic package that would kill a democracy and open the door for a type of regime that would organize a holocaust. To see this, go back to the previous paragraph and look what it is that the demonstrators were protesting. It is the physical vandalism that was done to a display. Now look what the demonstrators wanted. They wanted a “safe space” where they will be protected from physical violence. This is legitimate isn't it? Now look what Dershowitz says. He says the safe spaces were meant to be shared only by those who held the correct political persuasions. This is such a huge lie, it begs for a holocaust.

Endowed with this kind of demonic mentality, Dershowitz produces more sleights of hand. One being this passage: “Little attention was paid to incidents of anti-Semitism where students supportive of Israel were chased away from a rally.” So you want to know how this happened, and Dershowitz does a nearly incomprehensible verbal somersault to tell how. When repeated comprehensibly, the narrative he gave should have gone like this: No one chased the students away; it is just that the protesters wanted to see the Zionist administrators who raised the tuition fees replaced. Because the students who supported Israel were by nature Zionists, they took that call as a personal affront and went away on their own. Now, Dershowitz calls that anti-Semitism. What kind of holocaust is he begging for?

Here is another passage: “Jewish students have stated they self-censor pro-Israel views … They have been frightened by shouts of 'Long live the Intifada.'” Well, what's wrong with that? America is a free country, is it not? It has a First Amendment that guarantees freedom of speech for everyone, not only for Jews or for liars like himself. Does it not? Yes, this is true.

So how does a Dershowitz use his adroitness to make that passage sound like something bad happened? Simple, he lies again. He is, however, too stupid to know that if he does not want to be caught lying, he must cover his tracks, and that's something he did not do. So look what happened: first, he said he was going by the surveys that were conducted earlier in the year. Second, he tells what came in those surveys: “The Intifada they were referencing involved the stabbing of Jews.” Gotcha! Caught you red-handed. The truth is that the stabbing incidents happened only a week or two ago, not earlier in the year. Dershowitz just uttered another big lie that calls for a severe punishment.

In fact, when you go through the entire article, you find it written with a string of sleights of hand and damned lies. You conclude that Alan Dershowitz is a pathological liar, a hypocrite and a lightweight that couldn't impress even his kinfolks in Britain, the people that kicked him out of there and sent him back to America.

He must have stupefied them; they who live on the Island that was the home of Jack the Ripper. One Jack was enough for them, they did not want an Alan in their midst.

The Parasite wants more American Blood

Two Jewish so-called pundits, writing in the same publication a day apart, represent a case study on how deeply into the cesspool of confusion they, and those like them, were able to drag America over the decades – they who are never satisfied with what they get from an America that already caters to Israel's every whim at the expense of its own people and to their detriment.

The pundits are (1) John Podhoretz who wrote an article under the title: “Both Obama, GOP sound ridiculous discussing ISIS,” published in the New York Post on November 17, 2015; and (2) Benny Avni who wrote: “France's president has always been tougher than Obama.”

Being members of the Jewish Establishment, otherwise known as the Jewish lobby, both pundits responded in writing to the events that saw young terrorists conduct a murderous operation in France. In fact, most nations on the planet responded to those events – each in its own way – including the United States of America. As can be seen from the titles of the two articles, our two authors are expressing unhappiness with America's response while admiring that of a foreigner. No, it's not Benjamin Netanyahu or David Cameron or Winston Churchill this time but – believe it or not – it's Francois Hollande, the President of France whose nation was shaken by the terrorist attack.

The two pundits would have liked to see Barack Obama, the American President, act more like an aggrieved Frenchman than the French President. They would have wanted him to lunge head-on into the fray before his counterpart had the time to do so. This would have allowed the American to take the lead – which is what the Jews always counsel – because in their view, America must remain the policeman of the world or, to put it another way, the never-asleep and always trigger-happy sheriff of the global village.

Podhoretz began his article by attacking “the would-be leaders of the Republican Party” who are running to be President of the United States. After reporting on, and denigrating what each of them had said, he dismissed them collectively with this remark: “The sheer mind-numbing, stomach churning unseriousness on display is beyond appalling.” This done, he quickly turns his attention to Barack Obama, and says the following: “But then, so was the response of the Leader of the Free World.”

The author uses the word “response” to tell how President Obama responded verbally and militarily to the attack that took place in France, describing the president's reaction like this: “Obama took to a microphone to declare his anti-ISIS policy was sound,” and no mention of ordering the military anywhere. This being opposite to the kind of policy that the Jewish lobby has been advocating since they took control of America's foreign policy, Obama took pain to explain the rationale behind his thinking.

He said this: “I'm not interested in pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or other slogan that has no relationship to what will protect the American people.” Based on this lack of swagger in the W. Bush style, Podhoretz concludes that Obama does not intend to win against ISIS because he thinks that victory might hamper the goal of protecting the American people. Oh, what a scandalous stance!

So much for John Podhoretz. As to Benny Avni, this one has a difficult time believing that France is no more a part of the United States of America than Israel ever was. In fact, he always wrote about Israel as if it were a part of America, and now writes as if France were a part of America. Or maybe he believes that the world is the jurisdiction of sheriff America, the superpower that's under the control of Jews like himself.

Given that the President of France responded militarily to an attack on his country, and that Obama failed to do likewise, Avni views the latter as having neglected to discharge his duty as commander in chief. To punish him, he contrasts the two leaders, praising one and not the other. Here is how he does that: “Francois Hollande is showing resolve, maturity and global leadership – just what wars require.” Take that as a reprimand, Barack Obama, and don't you ever forget it.

Avni continues to make a case for war despite the fact that Obama explained he was avoiding war to protect the American people. In fact, our pundit – like all Jewish pundits – assigns a higher priority to the Jewish interest in seeing ISIS defeated, than to America's interest in sparing the lives of its people … lives that President Obama wants to protect at all cost, including the chagrin of the Jews. Oh, what a scandalous stance!

But Avni is not done yet because he still has another comparison to make. Look at this: “Unlike Hollande, who has advocated war regardless of public resistance, Obama keeps telling American voters that this isn't our war … That's too bad … Regrettably, we're unlikely to get American leadership till the next president takes residence in the White House.”

As you can see, even the Jews cannot change the commander in chief like they change socks; they must wait for the right time as designated by the Constitution. But give it time, and you'll see them try to amend the Constitution to make it so that they can replace the American President like they change socks.

In the meantime, Benny Avni can only lament that there will be no war under Barack Obama, and looks forward to the next president who will hopefully give the warmongers a reason to celebrate.

Islamic Radicalism or a Jewish Fifth Column?

The Neocons and their running barking dogs have been yelling from the rooftops that the people in authority must start saying things like “Islamic Radicals” because this is reality. They explain that when you call something by its correct name, you help society deal with it more effectively.

The immediate thought that comes to mind when you hear that kind of talk, is that whatever the Islamic radicals do, they do it in the open and hide nothing. On the contrary, they believe that their activities will have a bigger impact if the world knows about it. This is why they strive to mount ever more spectacular acts. And what this says is that the assertion of the Neocons to the effect that calling those kids one thing or another will help society deal with them more effectively – is a false assertion.

Of course, the Neocons are welcome to explain in detail how exactly their suggestion will work. And while they are at it, they can try to find a suitable name for the youngsters in America who kill each other to the tune of 3,000 per month – twelve months a year – year after year after year. This is a festering problem that's crying out for a solution; so let the Neocons put their collective mind to it, and show us what they can do besides running off the mouth.

And while we wait for the Neocons to come up with a satisfactory explanation to what they have suggested, and come up with a miracle solution to the problem that has been festering for a long time, we have no choice but to proceed with our analysis of the facts as we know them now … and reach the appropriate conclusions if there are any to be reached.

Without claiming to be geniuses, we assert that our observations lead us to the conclusion that squabbling about what to name something does nothing to alter it. This is because things are what they are regardless of what they are called. They may appear differently to different people, but that's a function of the mental and psychological disposition of the beholders.

The current situation being a complex one, it has an illation in symmetry. To highlight this reality, we ask the question: If what's out in the open cannot be altered just by naming it, do we have a better chance at altering what's hidden if there was a way to name it? The answer is yes. And that's because while we cannot alter what the people don't know (and they don't know what's hidden,) we would bring to light what is hidden if there was a way to name it. In fact, we would do to what's hidden what the radical kids do to their activities, which is to let the world see reality while it is unfolding.

So the question: What's hidden from the public that needs to be brought to light by naming it? Well, what's hidden are the secret activities of the Neocons. They are, in reality, a kind of sabotage that's normally associated with the work of Fifth Columns. Wow! Sabotage uh? Well then, does this mean we should consider the Neocon characters to be a Fifth Column in the business of sabotaging America? Absolutely … and there is something serious to be said about that.

When you realize that there would be no army of Jewish and non-Jewish Neocons if there were no Jews, you conclude that the expression “Fifth Column of Neocons” can be interchanged with “Fifth Column of Jews.” And this would be more descriptive of reality than the current situation of simply calling these characters, Neocons.

Thus, what needs to be done now is to popularize that expression so as to force the Jews into developing the courage of doing things in the open, or cease sabotaging America in secret. This is how what is hidden is brought to light by naming it … and how to solve a situation that seemed unsolvable. Just stop saying Radical Islam, and start calling the Neocons, a Fifth Column of Jews.

It's amazing, isn't it? You have Neocons running around, yelling that people should say Radical Islam when the radicals do what they do in the open and need not be named or renamed, whereas the Neocons themselves are engaged in the secret business of sabotaging America; doing what they do without the people of America knowing that they are in fact a Fifth Column of Jewish saboteurs.

It is obvious that what we have is an upside-down situation. So we ask: Did it come to be like that by itself? Or was it fashioned by someone with a secret agenda? To answer this question we approach the subject the way that physicists do things. That is, they deduce the nature of what is hidden and they cannot measure, by observing the effects that the hidden thing has on the surroundings.

In like manner, we observe that the effect of what the Jews have been doing for decades has pushed America into a permanent state of war with Muslims. We must, therefore, deduce that the secret agenda of the Jewish Fifth Columnists is to spark another war between Christian America and the Muslim World.

And this is something we must end here and now.

A Jew unveils Plot to start a Religious War

Those of us who study how a misunderstanding starts, and how it can lead to strife among ethnic or religious groups, have learned that the most effective way to doing this, is to watch for a moment of high tension, and start a false rumor. When the rumor is spread widely enough, it acts like the fuse that sets off the powder keg. The result can be an ethnic or a religious war that has the potential to last a long time, and kill or ruin many people.

And no one – but no one – is more adept at playing this cowardly game than the Jewish leaders who have been the instigators behind every ethnic and religious strife you can think of … strifes that took place in Africa and Asia since the end of the colonial era. This includes occupied Palestine where the Jews are regularly motivated to turn against Palestinians, and where Palestinians are motivated to turn against each other.

What makes it extremely difficult to show the prevalence of Jewish fingers behind these occurrences, is that the Jews have honed their playing of the game to the highest degree of perfection. That is, they almost never leave a trace that would give them away. Worse, they often make sure that if an investigation is conducted, someone else will be framed for the occurrence and for its consequences.

This time, however, Elliott Abrams blundered in that he revealed his hand, not realizing what he did. He wrote two articles back to back in two days on the subject of Christian refugees in the Middle East, inadvertently revealing the way that the Jews create and plant rumors in a society; confusions which they hope will lead to horrific situations they can then exploit.

First, Abrams wrote: “Obama's 'Shameful' Policy Toward Middle Eastern Christians,” an article that was published on November 17, 2015 in the Weekly Standard. The next day, he published – also in the Weekly Standard – an article that came under this title: “Obama Calls Helping Christian Refugees 'Shameful' While State Claims That's Exactly What It's Doing.”

By claiming that the State Department is giving special attention to Christians at the exclusion of the other groups, Abrams is misrepresenting the situation. In fact, he admits at the end of the November 18 article to this: “I do not believe the State Department has been effective in admitting persecuted Christians into the United States.” The truth is that the State Department did not try to discriminate among the refugees but was ineffective; it is that it did not try to discriminate at all.

But why would Abrams go out of his way to say a falsehood, only to deny it near the end of his presentation? Because to tell a falsehood is the easy way to start a rumor, and to deny the falsehood does not stop its circulation … nor does it limit the damage that is expected to follow. And causing damage – in fact maximum damage – has been the intent of the Jewish author all along, because damage to others is what sustains the Jews. They cannot live without it, anymore than a fish can live outside the sea.

If this is true, what do the Jewish leaders hope to gain from fomenting a religious war in the Middle East? They want what every terrorist wants; weak neighbors on whom they can sponge at will because they can only live a parasitic life at the expense of others. You see, my friend? As long as an existing order is stable, the Jews consider it strong enough to stand up to Israel and defend itself. Their insurance policy, therefore, is to use American power and prestige to destabilize the established states in the region, breaking them up along religious and ethnic lines.

Originally, they thought that after the breakup, some of the rumps would voluntarily join Israel in an alliance that will allow it to become the hegemon of the region. But the fact is that they had bad experiences waiting for this to happen, and so they are now trying something different. In fact, they failed in the past to win to their side the Christians of south Lebanon. They also had mixed results trying to win the Druze to their side. So the Jews changed the strategy and now work to provoke the Muslims to attack the Christians. They hope this will force America to intervene – which means they will have control of the situation.

In saying that the State Department is favoring Christians over Muslims, they hope to create the conditions for this to happen. And Elliot Abrams just played his part in this demonic game.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee are at it again

How much luckier can America get? It has received two gifts on the same day; one each from the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of foreign policy.

Their real names are Naftali Bennett who happens to be the minister of education and diaspora affairs in the hellhole that calls itself Israel, and Thomas L. Friedman who happens to be a columnist at the very confused publication which calls itself New York Times.

What sounds ridiculous but not funny about these two characters giving unsolicited gifts to America, is that the act itself brings to mind two images that should chill the spine of every American. These are The Kiss of Death and the Trojan Horse.

Bennett's gift came under the title: “Islamic State Understands One Thing: Force” and the subtitle: “Europe and the U.S. can follow the Israeli playbook to defeat Islamic terror. Here's how we did it.” The article was published on November 18, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal. As to Friedman's gift, it came under the title: “Cabs, Camels or ISIS,” published on the same day in the New York Times.

Both gifts are packaged to look like wise advice – supposedly highly prized Jewish advice – that should help the American governing establishment to reach the correct decision in the matter of the long running calamity that continues to plague the Levant.

But when you take into account the fact that Thomas Friedman is the guy that advised George W. Bush to invade Iraq during the Second Gulf War or he'll not be reelected, in the way that his father was not reelected because he did not invade Iraq during the First Gulf War, you cannot help but develop a derisive smile on your face. Also shake your head with amazed disbelief.

As to Naftali Bennett who is inviting America (and also Europe) to transform themselves and become like Israel, you wonder if he is telling the Washington Establishment to declare New Mexico, Texas and California to be too Latino and too Catholic to remain a part of America, thus dis-annex them, call them occupied territories, erect checkpoints in them every few miles, and conduct air and ground raids on them every so often – killing scores of their people, and calling these acts self-defense. That should make one giant hellhole called America.

Given that America is 60 times the size of the Jewish population of Israel, think of what will happen in America if what happens in Israel on a regular basis – as described by Bennett – starts to happen in America. Here is what he says is happening in Israel: “at the height of the Second Intifada, a conflict that would ultimately claim the lives of more than 1,000 Israelis.”

Now, dear reader, multiply that number by 60, and you get more than 60,000 dead Americans every so often. This is at par with the Vietnam War, but not as many as the Civil War. However, the difference between them is that both the Vietnam War and the Civil War were one-of-a-kind events, whereas the intifadas are regular occurrences that promise never to stop recurring.

Think about it: Judaism started thousands of years before Christianity and before Islam. Today, you wouldn't find twenty million Jews on the Planet, whereas Christianity and Islam boast more than a billion members each. So you ask: What happened to the Jews? The answer is that some converted to other religions; and those that did not were exterminated at the hands of the people they deceived, conned or took advantage of.

And there is a reason why these things keep happening to the Jews. It is that they adhere to a religion that's based on a book of horror they call the Old Testament where violence, blood and misery are celebrated on every page from cover to cover. Like the old saying goes: He who comes with the sword perishes with the sword. That's how they came, and that's how they are slated to perish again and again.

Because their numbers have dwindled, the Jews no longer do the fighting alone. They get the suckers to do it with them. They achieve this feat by giving the suckers gifts that turn out to be Trojan Horses from which advice appears that turn out to be Kisses of Death. This is how the suckers perish along with the Jews.

An emotionally disturbed is given a Platform

How can you tell that someone is emotionally disturbed? When he accuses someone of a falsehood, and then builds an entire narrative around it, complete with a prologue, a beginning, a middle, an end and also an epilogue. After that, he may even add a little piece of his wisdom to top it all off.

This is what Charles Tiefer has done when given a space in Forbes Magazine to write a sickly little fantasy under the title: “Egypt Should Get Over Its Irrational Denial That An ISIS Bomb Blew Up The Russian Airliner,” published on November 18, 2015. You look through the article where or when Egypt might have denied it was a bomb, let alone an ISIS bomb, and find none. You also look to see where or when someone – aside from the recent Russian revelation – has confirmed it was a bomb, and find none.

Tiefler says: “Officials from a number of Western governments have stated that it was most likely an ISIS bomb that blew up a Russian Metrojet charter plane.” First of all, “most likely” does not mean confirmation. It means speculation which the Egyptians flatly said they will not do because they are officially in charge of the investigation … and professionals do not speculate. Second of all, neither David Cameron nor Barack Obama said it might be an ISIS bomb; they simply said it could have been a bomb.

As to the recent Russian revelation confirming that it was a bomb, this is something that shows how the abuse of the tools of democracy by the mentally retarded and the emotionally disturbed end up castrating the democracies and fortifying their foes. Excessive speculation being an abuse of freedom of speech, it did the “West” in when the likes of Tiefer speculated that Putin is not admitting it was a bomb because he feared he'll be diminished in the eyes of his adoring fans. And now, speculation has done the West in a second time when Russia revealed it was a bomb.

So you ask: How did that work out? Here is how: Time and again, Putin has proven himself to be a master player in the geopolitical and diplomatic chess game. When Russia did the professional thing of not speculating about the Metrojet incident, the retarded and the disturbed in the so-called democracies lulled their people into believing that Russia will now retrench and be quiet. Everybody was happy and took a snooze.

These people did not think how Putin might play the incident to his advantage if and when he will have the chance. He then got lucky when the terrorist attack on Paris happened … and lo and behold, look what came of it; the Russians discovered just now it was a bomb that brought down the Russian plane. And so, France and Russia naturally forged a common cause that may be odds with how the Americans and the rest of the NATO alliance may wish to proceed with the war that's raging in the Levant.

This is how the Charles Tiefers of this world help castrate their own system of governance when given a platform from which to say things that are so perplexing about an Egypt that did nothing to hurt them, you wonder what it is that motivates them to go way 'far out' as we used to say it in the Seventies, to accomplish something that will do nothing more than stir up the bile of other mentally retarded and other emotionally disturbed characters – maybe even cause a few of them to hate Egypt for a day or two, then forget the whole thing.

Look at this: “Egypt's paranoid stance, on just how the plane was downed, is amazing.” Now, think about it, my friend, how does a professional that's doing an investigative job, who refuses to speculate about the outcome of his work before it is completed, be thought of as paranoid?

It is possible to imagine that a hate-filled Jew like Wolf Blitzer would want to hire a team of pundits who will discharge tons of venom in a CNN studio, in the hope that this will hurt Egypt in retaliation for not letting Moses rob more of the Pharaoh's gold before fleeing into the desert – several thousand years ago – but why does Tiefer express so much hatred for Egypt?

And why is the editor of Forbes Magazine giving him a platform from which to hurt the very system that is allowing his publication to exist and to thrive?

Mental and emotional troubles are still a mystery. More research will have to be done before we can be safe from the work of these characters.

To fight ISIS, cease inflating its Ranks

Finally, they found enough non-Jews at the New York Times to form a team that would write a piece on a Middle Eastern subject. But look what happened when a rusted bunch that was kept out of practice for an extended period of time, tried to get back in the game. It wrote like high school beginners.

These are the editors who wrote “How to Fight ISIS,” a piece that was published on November 17, 2015. They begin by chastising the “divorced from reality … right-wing politicians in the United States and Europe [who wish] to declare war on the Islamic State.” But what do the editors do next? They describe an existing situation that is war-like; and they further suggest that the Congress should formalize that situation by debating “a legal framework” that will give it legal ground.

Aside from that, most everything else they say in response to their question “how to fight ISIS?” is nothing more than the description of what everyone in the field is already doing. In fact, like the right-wing politicians they chastise, they add precious little that's new to the debate.

The one thing that could have put them on the right track to writing an intelligent editorial, is the thing they mishandled by mutilating the reality of an Arab effort to help mitigate the troubles which are said to be caused by dissatisfied Muslim youths. The truth is that everywhere in the Arab world, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the mosques and the imams are teaching the young to be tolerant of others, and to contain their anger even when someone or something provokes them.

But how do the editors of the Times misrepresent that reality? Here is one offending statement they often make: “Muslim nations will simply have to stop paying for and politically enabling the mosques and the imams that fuel extremists and their virulent perversions of Islam.” This is a fiction which the editors follow with a statement that stands at odds with it: “Moderate Muslims need to redouble efforts to ensure that their version of a more tolerant and inclusive Islam prevails.” They are doing the right thing and don't need to redouble their effort.

Describing a distorted reality as do the editors of the New York Times, gives the impression that the problem is caused entirely by the Arabs “notably Saudi Arabia,” as they put it. That's what divorces them from reality, what makes it impossible for them to understand what's happening, and what renders them incapable of making a useful contribution to the debate.

The truth is that the young in the Arab world do not want foreigners to meddle in their affairs. At times, they feel that their leaders listen too much to foreigners and so, they rebel against them. They may attack foreigners, but only when the latter invade their territory or when a foreign embassy does something egregious such as letting its staff train the locals to spy on their country, or pay them to subvert it.

When you take those young Muslims out of the picture that's painted by the Times and other media of the same caliber, you are left with dissatisfied young Muslims who were born and raised in the Western countries against which they tend to commit violent acts. That's what's happening in Europe at this time, and what happens in America at times. The question to ask, therefore, is this: Why do these youngsters come to be like that?

Well, teachers and professionals who work with the young will tell you that the thing about losing “self esteem” is not a joke as some people say it is. This is a condition that is real among teenagers, even among some who are older. When a youngster feels like a failure, he does not get depressed right away because he'll say to himself, I may be a failure but I come from a good family or a good ethnic background or a good country to which I can go if things get worse.

He will, however, move into a depressed state if he feels like a failure, and is made to feel like a member of a broken family, a despised religion, a denigrated race or a failed country that's not worth returning to. He becomes a powder keg that a simple spark would explode. Youngsters in this condition that have access to firearms will kill other youngsters in a school, a movie theater or the street. Other youngsters will join a gang or if they can, will join the Caliphate. And they will commit the sort of horrific acts that no Arab youngster would ever commit.

And you know what the biggest crime in all of this is? It is that some media chains deliberately work to make young Muslims feel inferior; two of those being Fox News and CNN.

A Failure thousands of Years in the Making

In one of his commentaries made on the CBS evening news anchored by Walter Cronkite, Eric Sevareid addressed what was then the thorny issue of a Mafia whose presence in America seemed impervious to being neutralized. In his commentary, Sevareid made a point that stirred a mini controversy at the time, but now seems to have been spot on.

He made the point that it was possible to conclude from the affiliation of those who join such groups, that the impulse to do crime was an acquired trait that was also inherited by the offspring. This being the case, you cannot reason with these people when they disrupt the normal rhythm of life, therefore you must use other methods to deal with them effectively.

I predict that you will develop a great respect for Sevareid when you analyze the piece that came under the title: “A failure made in America” and the subtitle: “The U.S. has a chance to condemn an anti-Israel labeling measure and whiffs,” written by the editors of the New York Daily News and published on November 16, 2015.

Stop for a moment and think about it. What would you say about someone who bitterly complains that you hurt him because he tried to con a group of people, and you failed morally by not supporting his effort? Believe it or not, this is what the editors of the Daily News are saying. Here is a condensed version of the relevant passage: “In a major failure of moral leadership, Obama is bolstering the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel … The State Department undermined Israel by getting behind the changing of how goods are labeled when produced in the Israeli occupied territories of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights.”

What this means is that the editors of the Daily News – speaking for Israel, and in the name of all Jews – are expressing bitterness at America because the Israelis used to con the world, especially the Europeans, and will no longer be able to do so thanks to America's decision to distance itself from the practice.

The Jews admit they used to label “made in Israel” goods that were produced in occupied Palestine, but must now label them truthfully; a move that will give the consumers a way to make an informed decision as to whether or not they wish to endorse the occupation or oppose it. Giving the consumers a choice is what's wrong, say those Jews, not the fact that they were cheating the consumers. They are after all Jews, and if they don't cheat, they forfeit their glorious obnoxiousness.

The fat boys of Israel who exploit the Palestinians will hurt, these people complain, because the world will most certainly oppose the occupation and will stop buying their products. This will mark not a failure of the Jews, but a failure of an America that refuses to back the Jewish deception, and refuses to show the world how and why it must pay for and encourage the crime against humanity that's the occupation of Palestine and the annexation of the Western Golan. What's happening to this world that it can no longer tolerate crime?

Now, my friend, do you see why Eric Sevareid was correct? It is that the Jews have been governed by that sort of mentality for thousands of years. It is a trait they acquired by being exposed to it, and by inheriting the DNA information that is normally transferred from parent to offspring. And despite the numerous pogroms and holocausts that have consumed the Jews throughout space and time, they have not learned a thing.

The passage that follows demonstrates why every time that the Jewish trait mentioned above comes up for discussion; the subject of Jewish existence gets dragged into the mix. Here is that passage: “Products will be identified to enable boycotts as sought by Palestinians and Europeans who hold Israel guilty of oppressions – some for the fact of the Jewish state's existence.”

As you can see, it is the Jews themselves who put their own existence on the line every time that they see an opportunity to make a gain they cannot forgo … however small the gain may be. And each time they did that – through time and through space – they lost the bet, and a pogrom or a holocaust followed.

The editors end their piece with this: “Obama helped put a powerful weapon into the hands of the anti-Israel brigades.” In fact, the weapon is their own. It is a dagger they inherited down the line from thousands of years ago. It is a weapon they use once every few generations to commit hari kari, and then claim compensation for the loss they suffered.