Hanging on to a crumbling Pax Americana

February 24, 25 and 26 are three remarkable days on the calendar of the year 2016.

On the first of those days, Benny Avni asked: “Does Obama want to give Gitmo to the Castros?” an article that was published in the New York Post. On the second of those days, Victor Davis Hanson lectured on “The Cost of Abandoning Messy Wars,” an article that was published in National Review Online. And on the third day, Elliott Abrams lamented: “Abandoning Human Rights in Egypt Will Not Produce Stability,” an article that was published on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The three articles have one thing in common, which is that they decry the slow and steady abandonment of America's effort to try and implement the Judeo-Israeli agenda. The plan consists of the attempt to create a Middle Eastern modern-day Empire using the American military … and handing the bounty to the Jews of America and of Israel to do with it as they wish. As to America's role in the enterprise, it would have been to keep its military on high alert so as to continue standing like a sentinel protecting Israel and enforcing Jewish decrees by bludgeoning Arab and Muslim dissenters the way that Israel bludgeons the people of Palestine.

That plan was given the name Pax Americana by the so-called New Conservatives (Neocons) of America. They had modeled it after the ancient Roman Empire – of which Palestine was but a small colony – whereas the modern version fancies the transformation of today's occupied Palestine into the seat of Israeli and Jewish American power and dominance in the entire Middle Eastern region.

The trouble is that the history of the past half-century has not been kind to that sort of thinking. Indeed, America and some parts of the world were fooled into believing that the Jews of Israel had created a new world order that was here to stay. It was a delusion that began in 1967 when Israel unleashed a Pearl Harbor style attack on its unguarded neighbors and looked like the giant that was going to defend itself, and defend America, the world, civilization and everything good and worth preserving on this planet … if not the entire universe.

That's the image the Jewish propaganda machine has been describing to convince the American political class it should abandon working to safeguard the interests of the American people, and start working to feed the interests of “Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel.” The understanding being that every Jew, wherever he may be in the world, was a part of the deal since the Jews and Israel are one and the same.

Unfortunately, however, things began to go awry for the Americans and for the Jews. What happened was that the peaceful people of Palestine who never threw a stone at an Israeli tank or a soldier of occupation saw the gradual erosion of the influence they used to have over their children and grandchildren. And despite America's effort to keep those kids disarmed, dispirited and helpless, they learned on their own how to throw stones at the American-built tanks and the Jewish soldiers that were riding in them.

That's not all because at the same time as those events were developing in Palestine, the Americans who were expecting to see their twentieth century achievements crowned with the great honor of being named the ones who transformed the Middle East into a “democratic” nirvana – were beginning to see how the Jewish policies they had adopted were failing deplorably. It was happening, they said, because of “complex” reasons.

For one thing, the Americans were brainwashed into believing they were exceptional people because they freely chose to be subjugated by the Jews. In consequence of being so honored, they obeyed the command of their Jewish masters to go bomb the Arabs and the Muslims into the “Stone Age.” That's because the latter were deprived of the pleasure to choose the Jews as their masters, they explained. But after the exceptional bombed the deprived, it became obvious that the deprived were standing taller than the exceptional. Go figure.

With Israeli failures piling up in microcosmic Palestine and American failures piling up in macrocosmic Middle East, America had no choice but to retrench. That's why the Neocons are now asking questions, lecturing to the political class of America and lamenting the whole sordid mess.

Thus, you see Victor Davis Hanson counsel not to abandon the messy wars that America created. Meanwhile, Benny Avni wants to keep Gitmo open where prisoners will continue to be detained for an indefinite period of time. As to Elliott Abrams, he wants America to continue promoting the inalienable right of the Arabs and the Muslims to freely choose serving the Jews or being bombed into the Stone Age.

Stealthy editorializing by destructive Moles

Like every violent cult, the so-called Jewish religion relies on a set of activities which are proper to it and through which it advances the various causes it champions. Normally, such methods operate at the metaphysical level and in defiance of rational thought … but something different happens in the Jewish case.

The Jewish method sounds less like the chant of witching verses and more like pimping for someone that's in reality a worthless bag of nothingness. It works like this: When a group of Jewish leaders covet a position of power and influence in government or the media for example, and when they decide they must take control of it, they select one of their own to fill the position. To get their chosen character appointed to that position, they acquaint themselves with every individual who may have a say in making the appointment decision.

This done, the Jewish leaders snoop around to identify the friends and family of those individuals. They approach them directly or find someone that can get close enough to play the “word of mouth” trick on them. It consists of whispering in the ear of the listener the outstanding attributes of the character they preselected.

Moreover, in a manner that mimics religious proselytizing, they urge their listeners to go out and tell everyone else they should themselves go out and preach to those they know and those they deal with, the suitability of the preselected character to fill that coveted position.

Once they have their man or woman in place, they purge the institution of everyone that refuses to toe their Jewish line and fill the vacancies with handpicked moles. This is how the Jews manage, for example, to turn the professionally written journalistic reports into satanic editorials; and do so without the readers realizing that the Jew has just ejaculated his moral syphilis into their heads, their hearts and their souls.

You can see how this is accomplished when you read the rather ordinary journalistic report which came under the satanic title: “In Reversal, Egypt Says Terrorists Downed Russian Jet Over Sinai,” written by Nour Youssef and published on February 24, 2016 in the New York Times. The report is ordinary but not the headline for, it contains the syphilitic ejaculation of the Jewish mole that wrote it.

Here is how the headline should have read: “Egypt Says Terrorists Downed Russian Jet Over Sinai.” But despite the fact that Egypt has not reversed itself – since it did not take a position from which to reverse – adding “In Reversal” at the start of the sentence has served as the toxic ingredient which the Jewish editor of the NY Times utilized to turn a journalistic moment into a Judeo-Satanic moment.

Look how innocently Youssef's report begins: “After months of cautious silence, Egypt acknowledged that terrorists had downed the jetliner that broke up over the Sinai Peninsula. The authorities made the admission after urging Egyptians and the world to await the results of an international investigation.”

It is that given the solemnity of the occasion, the Egyptians proceeded in the way that educated, self-respecting and civilized people do things. Partnering with several foreign teams, they conducted the investigation with caution, patience and thoroughness. When done, they announced the result. And contrary to what the NY Times says, that was no reversal from a prior position they never took.

But why did the Jewish mole create that Judeo-Satanic moment? Why did he or she give the false impression that Egypt had initially denied that the downing of the plane was an act of terrorism when, in fact, Egypt never did so?

Well, my friend, asking why a Jew would lie is like asking why a pile of rotting trash smells bad. It is the nature of the Jewish so-called religion to fabricate false narratives, to tell stories that never happened, and to give its adherents the opportunity to live a parasitic life on the goodness of those who are naive enough to host them and listen to them.

There is also the fact that Israel is increasingly having a hard time getting other nations to befriend it. This is happening at a time when Egypt is signing cooperation and commercial agreements with just about everyone on the planet.

Conscious of that reality and angry at an Egypt that will not let them exploit its people the way they exploit the American people, the Jews have activated the lie machine to make hay out of the plane crash by generating false stories they hope will hurt Egypt, and in the process – perhaps, just perhaps – produce something that will benefit Israel.

They are the miserable bunch that lives on mayhem and chaos.

They're back at the Start of the vicious Cycle

How do you know that the self-appointed leaders of the Jews are losing influence, wealth and power?

You know it when you see them go back to the pretense of protecting the Jewish rank and file from a society that is trying to harm them. You'll also know they have reached a desperate level when you see them throw the antisemitic accusation at someone.

And this is where you'll find the editors of the New York Daily News at this time. You can see how they are trying to weasel their way back to the center stage position with the editorial they wrote under the title: “An education in tolerance that CUNY must end anti-Jewish agitation on campus,” published on February 25, 2016. Once they are back in that position, they'll re-conquer America the way they did at the start of the cycle.

Before we proceed with a discussion of that editorial, let me tell you a true story. It must have been in the late 1960s or early 1970s when a young Australian Jew went to occupied Jerusalem and set fire to the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Luckily the fire was contained before causing too much damage. The Israelis attributed the crime to the eccentricity of the young man, and closed the file.

Unhappy at the haste with which the Israelis treated the subject, a couple of Palestinian Arabs – not prominent by any means – asked that there be an investigation. They did not ask for a “full investigation” mind you, just an ordinary one. They argued it would do a great deal of good to air all the facts, thus put to rest any suspicion that may be out there. The Israeli authorities took a little time to respond to that, but not the North American Jewish leaders – those in Canada – who responded immediately.

They said over and over that the Arabs had no idea how a civilized system of justice works. So they set out to “educate” the Arabs. In reality, however, what they did was “educate” the Canadian public since the Arabs in Palestine and elsewhere were unaware of what the Jews were saying or doing in North America.

What follows is the kind of education that the Jewish leaders gave us … we, the Canadian public: If the Arabs have a suspicion, like they seem to say they do, it means they have evidence. Before they open their mouths again, they should reveal that evidence or keep their mouths shut forever.

And that, my friend, was my first lesson … not on how the system of justice was meant to work, but on how ignorant the Jewish leaders were, and how poorly their minds operated. The reality is that a young man does not normally fly from Australia to Jerusalem where he sets fire to an Islamic holy place just because he is eccentric. Thus, the abnormality of the act was sufficient to rouse suspicion. An investigation would have confirmed or rejected any such suspicion; and that's all what the Palestinian Arabs had asked for.

Look now – five decades later – what the editors of the New York Daily News say about the situation at CUNY: “a pro-Palestinian group [SJP] has created a climate of fear for Jewish students … demands full investigation.” Note that they say “demand” and “full investigation.” Like the Arabs of half a century ago, do these editors have any idea how a civilized system of justice works? Or do they need to be “educated” as to how it works?

Look what else they are saying: “protests have included anti-Semitic rhetoric.” Well, seeing that anti-Semitic accusation, you know these people are desperate. Furthermore, before the investigation has even begun – if there is going to be one – they are championing the call “on the CUNY administration to determine, among other things, whether to revoke SJP's status as a student organization.” Not only they are suspecting something, they are using the suspicion as a stepping stone to tell what the punishment should be.

They go on to do what is known as trying the SJP in the media. Is that how they understand a civilized system is supposed to work? Coming to the end of their presentation, they say this: “As loathsome as the SJP message is, the First Amendment grants its members the right to speak … At the same time, Chancellor James Milliken is obligated [that's OBLIGATED] to take action – including expulsion”.

They want to see all this done before there has been an investigation … if there is going to be one at all.

These people must really be desperate.

The Saboteurs that won't quit sabotaging

Do you remember what happened after the Iran nuclear deal was signed, sealed and delivered? The Jewish saboteurs and their echo repeaters continued their attacks on it. They worked like busy bees trying to convince the American Congress of the brain-dead it must find a way to blow up that thing before it takes effect.

Those who know do realize that this method of interacting with others is as Jewish as matzoh bread. In fact, not only do the Jews advise such course of action to the people who listen to them; it is how they proceed themselves after negotiating a deal with someone. And no one knows this reality better than the Palestinians who have tried to negotiate a peace deal with them. Time after time, the Palestinians saw the deal they spent years negotiating being blown up by the Israelis who never failed to inject the kind of last minute condition that exploded like a hand grenade under the negotiating table.

Here they come again, trying to sabotage the Syrian peace talks slated to begin soon. Here comes the icon of Jewish trickery ... the one in many, Elliott Abrams, doing his thing in an attempt to blow up the talks even before the first session is held. To this end, he wrote “Syria Delusions, Round Two,” an article he posted on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations on February 24, 2016.

To do that, Abrams looks back in time searching for straws on which to base an argument that will help blow up the talks. He goes back to the year 2012 when Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta and David Petraeus had “urged President Obama to support the Syrian rebels.” He also goes back to the year 2014 when Hillary Clinton had remarked that the “failure to build a force of the people protest[ing] against Assad, left a vacuum that the jihadis have now filled.”

The author uses those examples to make the point that President Obama made a mistake when he rejected the advice that was given to him in the past. This said, he warns that the President is repeating the same mistake by rejecting the advice given to him now by the likes of Ash Carter, Joseph Dunford and John Brennan who want to “inflict real pain on the Russians” rather than sit with them in a peace conference on Syria.

But how is it morally justifiable to seek inflicting pain on the Russians at this time rather than seek to alleviate the horrible pain which millions of Syrian civilians are suffering and have been for five years? Elliot Abrams answers this question by repeating the logic that was articulated in the Wall Street Journal. It goes as follows:

[The Russians claimed military cooperation between the U.S. and Russia even though Ash Carter had explicitly ruled out such thing. The thinking is that Russia is trying to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its coalition partners by giving the appearance that Washington would accept Mr. Assad. Furthermore, while all this was happening, Russia's warplanes were stepping up their attacks in Syria].

But is that enough of an excuse to let the Syrians die by the hundreds of thousands and suffer by the millions? No, says John Kerry who is the American Secretary of State. In fact, he added that the peace talks have “a viable chance of succeeding,” in which case the misery will be alleviate and gradually lifted. In contrast, says the Wall Street Journal, according to Elliott Abrams, it is that “an [unnamed] senior administration official” had reported that Mr. Carter had said “he thinks it's a [Russian] ruse.”

And based on that hearsay of a hearsay of a hearsay, Elliot Abrams concludes that “Mr. Obama has an absolute right to reject the advice he got [in 2012] being commander in chief ... and be attuned instead to Mr. Kerry's view that talks with Sergei Lavrov will solve Syria.”

However, says Elliott Abrams, this is not going to happen because Obama rejected the advice he received in 2012, and because Fred Hof, who was Mr. Obama's Special Adviser for Syria, said that “during all of the years of the Assad regime, the United States failed to protect a single Syrian inside Syria.”

For these reasons, says Elliott Abrams, it is better not to have a peace conference on Syria. The option he prefers is the one that was hinted at by the Wall Street Journal.

It is to confront the Russians on the battlefield because peace has the effect of killing people whereas war has a proven record of saving lives.

Just look at the record of the American Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam and the Iran-Iraq War. Were they not spectacles to cheer the heart of an Elliott Abrams and all those like him?

How not to resolve the Jewish Question

Have you ever read a piece of writing that was authored by a Jew, or heard a speech that was delivered by a Jew outlining: How to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

You never did because it never happened. But time after time, there have been proposals given out by Jews on “how NOT to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.” The newest such proposal is an article that came under such title and a subtitle that reads: “Some policies are guaranteed to make things worse.” It was written by Clifford D. May, and published on February 23, 2016 in The Washington Times.

Like all the articles and speeches in that vein, May's proposal shows convincingly there is not a single peaceful pathway that will lead to the resolution of that conflict because underlying it is a Jewish problem that has persisted for three and a half millenniums. Until this Jewish problem is resolved, the region will remain in turmoil. And sadly – very sadly – no Jewish inspired problem in the region or elsewhere on the planet has ever been resolved without a destructive event accompanying it; something that has always hurt a great many people.

Look what prompted Clifford May to write his article: “to make sure the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians does not get resolved … start with an idea the French have been floating: Convene a 'peace conference.'” Well, my friend, you need not be a psychiatrist to have noticed that the word association typifying the Jewish existence has always been “peacemaker” to which the reflexive Jewish response has been “crucify him”. 

But why would the French or anyone wish to convene a peace conference? Clifford May tells why. He says the French motive is to “demand that Israelis end the occupation [of Palestine].” It is obvious from that response that the French, like everyone else, see the occupation as a major source of friction in the region with ramifications that extend far and wide.

But occupation and the usurpation of neighboring properties by creeping annexation has been the cornerstone of the Jewish system of religious beliefs since the days of Moses. Their account of what they did (true or false) is that they killed the first born to every Egyptian family, looted their homes and temples, and ran into the desert looking for a land reputed to be full of milk and honey. That was Palestine, a place inhabited by peaceful people the Jews were able to surprise, kill mercilessly and rob the same way that common terrorists do their thing.

This is a story that the Jews say has unfolded three and a half millenniums ago. It is one they celebrate every year as Passover. It is also an event they replayed more or less the same way a century ago – not out of Egypt this time but out of Europe. That's when they had their eyes not only on the land of milk and honey but the wider Fertile Crescent of which Palestine is but a tiny spot on the map. What the Jews have been laboring to grab this time, are riches that extend from the sources of Nile River to the wetlands of the Euphrates River.

To articulate his point of view, Clifford May has done what the Jews always do. He pinned on others everything that's wrong with the Jews while attributing to the Jews the virtues he saw in others. This approach has always yielded the effect of turning history upside down. It also painted the human race as a species of jerks while making the Jews look like a group whose perfection is only exceeded by its idealism.

Thus, the story they tell about the 1967 war – for which they had prepared since the 1956 assault on the Suez Canal by France, Britain and Israel – is that the Arabs attacked Israel, and not the other way around. More wars were started by the Arabs in the decades that followed, they say, the result of which being that Israel occupied the Sinai, Gaza, the Golan Heights, Southern Lebanon and the West Bank of the Jordan River. Except for the West Bank, Israel is out of those places, say the Jews, not because it was kicked out but because it felt like it. After all, why does someone fight a war if not to catch a fish and throw it right back into the sea? They want you to believe they engage in wars not for keeps but as a sport activity that's uplifting of the spirit.

Because America is working like the devil to keep the Palestinians of the West Bank helpless and disarmed, the Jews are able to hang on to that piece of land like their dear life. To justify this ongoing crime against humanity, they have – for half a century – been portraying the Palestinians as a cut from the cloth making up the rest of humanity. Meanwhile, the Jews are portraying themselves as standing alone like paragons of what's perfect and what's ideal.

That's how Clifford May explains why most of the world stands with the Palestinians against Israel. But he is a Jewish leader whose job is to reassure the rank and file that everything will be okay if they continue to believe in the cause of Zionism and remain in the fold. And so he elaborates as follows:

“There are those who understand how anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism have become intertwined. Just as the goal of radical anti-Semitism in the 20th century was a Europe without Jews, the goal of radical anti-Semitism in the 21st century is a Middle East without a Jewish state. In both cases, economic warfare and propaganda are means to that end.”

Thus, speaking of the movement known as Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS), he tells the Jewish rank and file that help is on the way:

“A growing list of members of Congress [has] begun to enact legislation intended to discourage anti-Israeli trade and commerce practices … authorizing the U.S. to re-evaluate economic relations with the EU countries that support boycotting Israel … Illinois and South Carolina have passed laws penalizing companies that discriminate against Israel. Similar measures are pending in other states … Anti-BDS bills or resolutions have passed in Canada, France, Spain and Britain”.

What's this about? In practical commercial terms, such measures – even when they are fully enacted and rigorously policed – yield absolutely nothing because you cannot force people to buy what they choose not to consume. The measures will, however, have a powerful psychological effect.

This is how it works. Recall that Clifford May spoke of anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism as if they were genetic defects afflicting the human species. The truth, however, is that they are acquired conditions brought about by the Jewish leaders themselves.

They happen when those honchos sense they are losing power and/or wealth. To get their status back in shape, they employ shady practices such as the bribe and the blackmail to force the leaders of a country to adopt measures designed to advance the Jewish causes. But such measures often prove to be detrimental to the population at large. In time, a critical mass of harmful effects is reached, anger mounts among ordinary people, and anti-Semitism erupts. If not dealt with properly, pogrom is unleashed.

This has been the history of the Jews since the beginning of time. It is what Clifford May and all those like him are trying to replicate yet again. And this is why the Jewish question never gets resolved.

Everyone’s responsible except the actual Culprit

Up until now there had been only two ways to look at the history of a painful episode. You could look at it from the winner's point of view or you could look at it from the loser's point of view. Serious historians, writing scholarly textbooks, have always elaborated on both sides of the ledger, letting the readers decide what to make of the events that unfolded long ago.

Victor Davis Hanson then came on the scene and worked on a third way to write history. He does it in the article that came under the title: “An Iraq of Myth and Fantasy,” published on February 23, 2016 in National Review Online. Briefly stated, Hanson does not write history but argues the abstracts of a paradoxical situation in which superpower America messes every cause it embraces by botching what it touches as if the Midas touch had been turned on its head.

In fact, that trend began to take shape during the final year of the Vietnam War. Serious historians were beginning to sense that America was going to lose the war, thus began to write history from the loser's point a view. This brought to the fore the writers of “popular” history who wrote as if they did not care about the facts, their interest resting solely on the opinions of the side with which they were aligned. And of course, the opposite side had its own popular historians who articulated the opinions they were supporting.

But how do these people write a history of opinions as opposed to a history of facts? Victor Davis Hanson shows us how. To be brutally honest, however, it must be said that he did not invent the method because it had been there since the Vietnam War. Indeed, what the popular historians of the era had said was that America won the war because it killed more than a million Vietnamese at the cost of only 65,000 American lives. But America had to evacuate its troops and personnel in a hurry, they explained, because it was losing the home front. That is, the politicians and the media in America defeated their military, thus handed the Vietnamese a token victory. That's only a token victory, you see; not a real one.

Hanson does not repeat that explanation verbatim in conjunction with the Iraq War; he only uses Vietnam as a model to tailor-make arguments that fit the new circumstances. The current two-sided obsession being the prior events that led to the war and the events that transpired post the official end of the war – the author sees no need to mention historical facts that would stand scrutiny, opting instead to argue opinions that create their own supporting facts.

Pitting himself against Donald Trump who said that George W. Bush knew there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq, Hanson discusses the abstracts of a paradoxical situation in which superpower America crushed the Iraqi army in record time … but in so doing created a vacuum that attracted terrorist organizations. These would be organizations that Saddam Hussein was accused of harboring and equipping with WMD, but turned out to be a series of false accusations; a pile of myths and fantasies that Hanson assigns not to the side he is backing, but to the opposite side, as can be seen in the title of his article.

He then goes on to blame the war of 2003 not on George W. Bush or Dick Cheney but on “Bill Clinton who bombed Iraq on December 16 and 19, 1998;” also on “Madeleine Albright [who] often voiced warnings about Saddam's aggression.” As to the interest in the bogus WMD claims, he blames that on the “violence [which] spiked in June and July 2003.” And so, he laments: “Had the occupation gone as well as the initial war, WMD would have been noted in the context of there having been 20 other writs for going into war”.

He now gets nostalgic: “The invasion was brilliantly conducted [but] securing Iraq was poorly managed.” And he offers a piece of advice: “It is legitimate to change opinions … but it is not ethical to deny prior positions or invent reasons why what once seemed prudent later seemed reckless”.

Having blamed the Iraq War on Clinton and Albright, and having blamed the interest that developed in the non-existent WMD – on the violence of June and July 2003, Hanson invokes a historical event to blame Obama for the whole thing. He does that by spinning historical circumstances in a way that allows him to speculate.

Here is what he does. He writes that Harry Truman did the right thing when in 1950, he sent reinforcements to Korea. He saved South Korea and changed the course of history, says Hanson, but ended his tenure at a low point because of bad circumstances and the bad behavior of his underlings.

The situation began to improve again, says Hanson, when Eisenhower was elected, and he sent reinforcements to Korea. He goes on: “Had Eisenhower, in Obama-like worry over his 1956 reelection bid, yanked out all U.S. peacekeepers in 1955 … we can imagine a quick North Korean absorption of the South, with the sort of death and chaos we are now seeing in Iraq”.

So there you have it, the 2003 Iraq War is the responsibility of Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Barack Obama. How did we all miss this?

To single out or not to single out?

Israel is the only colonial entity that was created by an act of the UN Security Council. Israel is the only concoction that is today occupying another country. Israel is the only fabrication possessing an army of robotic pundits echoing its directives around the world. Israel is the head of an organized crime syndicate with a worldwide reach, able of subjugate and own the Congress of brain-dead zombies in America.

For all these reasons, the United Nations has finally awaken to the reality that it has the duty to keep an eye on the cultural and terrorist creation it has itself conceived, and keep the thing under check lest the doings it is responsible for metastasize and engulf the entire planet of humans.

Not only has the United Nations awaken to that reality, but so did the American people – among them many Jews – and they are taking the necessary steps to help the rest of humanity contain the calamity which goes by the name Zionism. As expected, the army of robotic pundits sprung into action echoing around the world the cry that they must do what they can to protect Israel from the containment ring that's tightening around its legs like a lasso thrown at them to halt Israel's advance.

You can see how the pundits go about echoing their cries when you study two editorials that came back to back on two consecutive days. The first was written by the editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune under the title: “Beware Bokova,” published on February 21, 2016. The second was written by the editors of the New York Daily News under the title: “Hatred on the Hudson” and the subtitle: “Vassar needs to combat venomous, anti-Israel, borderline anti-Semitic rhetoric on campus,” published on February 22, 21016.

The editors of the Tribune are railing against the current head of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, because they fear she may become Secretary General of the UN when Ban Ki-moon's tenure ends at the end of this year. She is no good, they say, because UNESCO has displayed anti-Israel bias. But fearing that this alone may not tarnish the woman enough, the editors decided to dump on her the dirt they usually dump on all UN matters.

As to the performance of the editors at the New York Daily News, it should be noted that Vassar College used to be a bastion of Jewish studies, and today remains very much in that tradition. But after fifty years of Jewish exclusivity at spewing anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hate propaganda and incitement, even the Jews of Vassar came to realize that a volcano spewing this much lava for that length of time, will only end up burying itself in its own discharges.

Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) being the slap on the wrist that the world has adopted for the time being to send a signal to the Israelis telling them to cease the genocidal activities by which they inflict daily horrors on the people of Palestine, it is DBS that the Jewish pundits and their echo repeaters are whining about now.

That whine helps us recall a time when all that the Palestinians could do to stop the demolition of their homes, was to throw stones at the Israeli tanks that came to demolish them. Instead of taking that as a signal they must change course, the Jews of dual American-Israeli citizenship ran around America whining: “They throw stones at our soldiers; oh pity me, pity me.” They refused to change course, and what followed were two intifadas and three Gaza wars. What should we think will follow the Jewish rejection of the BDS signal?

But why are these people the way they are? Here, in their own words, is the answer: “Cloaked as a protest of Israeli relations with Palestinians, the movement attacks the Jewish state's right to exist and targets it, alone among all the nations, for punishment as a human rights violator. Therein lies anti-Semitism.”

Translation: The protest by Jews and others at the Jewish bastion that is Vassar College, is in reality an anti-Semitic movement intending to destroy Israel while disguising itself as a concern for the Palestinians. It is anti-Semitic because the people at Vassar (and by the way other campuses across America too,) target no one but Israel, and protest nothing but its human rights violations. The implication is that the whiners will cease whining if the good people of America targeted someone else besides Israel, and protested something else besides its infractions.

Well, maybe someone should tell those professional whiners that there is something called “Black Lives Matter,” and something called “Occupy Wall Street.” Maybe they should also be reminded that Sanders and Trump are protest movements of the kind that America has never seen before. Will they go the way that Rhodesia and South Africa went? Most likely not because each situation is different. But something will happen, and when it does, everyone will be surprised.

However, humanity has always triumphed when fighting human rights violations rising to the level of genocide … and no one knows this reality better than the Jews. This is why those at Vassar College have decided to move now rather than wait and end up in some version of the gas chamber.

They wish to live like everyone else, and not do what will single them out as being the disease that has plagued mankind since the beginning of time.

An actual Case as utilitarian as Fiction

Do you know what the utility of fiction is? It is that you can tackle taboo subjects in depth without worrying about the politically correct restrictions which society places on you.

Fiction does not have to be a complete novel or a film script to be effective. In fact, we use fictional fibs in our daily lives to communicate ideas that would be offensive if we expressed them directly. One of the forms we use to express such fibs is the metaphor. In this case, we use human characters or animals or inanimate objects to represent an actual situation, thus tell a story that may include a biting punchline, without worrying about offending someone.

Now imagine someone telling you the story of the relationship he has with someone else not realizing that everything he says applies to you as well. Whereas he sees that someone is a jerk for not letting him make an indecent proposal to his wife, you think of yourself being a jerk in his eyes for not letting him make an indecent proposal to your wife. And you didn't know it … till now.

That's the emotional experience you'll sail through if you're an American, and you read the article that came under the title: “France's Relentless Hostility to the Jewish State,” written by the French Jewish author Guy Milliere ... translated into English and published on the website of Gatestone Institute on February 18, 2016. After reading each sentence you'll exclaim: That's what these people are trying to do to France! And then realize: Oh my God, that's what they are doing to us Americans because we let them.

Look what Milliere complains about: “No French journalist or politician mentioned International Holocaust Remembrance Day.” Look what else he is unhappy about: “Every newspaper article and politician's speech in France was about the contracts French companies could sign with Iran.” Is that enough to boil your blood? Brace yourself because there is more: “Iran was presented as a 'reliable ally' in the fight against ISIS … France's willful blindness is characteristic of general attitude of France toward Israel.” In the view of the Jews, it should always be about Israel and never about France or someone else.

There is more of that sort of stuff in the article. By the time you've read it all, you'll have realized that the Jews will not tolerate you having good relations with them and someone else simultaneously. They'll put you on the spot and force you to choose between them and that someone. If you insist on being friendly to both or you choose the other over them, they'll accuse you of antisemitism. Now you know where the tsunami of hate and incitement you see in the American media comes from.

The result of your action, they warn, will be that you'll do what France did when it adopted an “Arab policy.” This was the move that allowed the creation of close ties between France and the Arab and Muslim worlds. The aim of the policy was to make certain that France will retain influence with those people. What came of it is this: “France provided financial and economic help to Algeria in exchange for the use of a naval base.” That brought about the domino effect: “France maintained close ties with Tunisia and Morocco, and established close relation with the Arab league.” The effect may have been virtuous for those nations but was vicious for Israel.

Can it get worse for Israel and the Jews? Yes it can. In matters of foreign policy, “to please its Arab friends, France imposed an arms embargo on Israel … during the Yom Kippur War, it refused landing rights to U.S. military planes flying to Israel [also directly into the Sinai] … It developed close ties with the PLO … It received Arafat and granted him all the honors reserved for a head of state … it treated him in a French military hospital … it supported the creation of a Palestinian state.” As to the future, “France intends to create a National Museum of Palestine in Ramallah”. What a horrifying thought! Can you believe that someone is capable of doing all this?

As to the domestic scene, France's “Arab policy” has allowed the establishment of Islamic organizations. “Two training centers for imams are funded by the government. Many of the imams preach in prisons and the 'no-go' zones … Each mosque is free to choose its imam.” Worse, “the Muslim vote is now an important factor in French politicians' decisions.” Here then, what used to be a Jewish exclusive privilege has become a Muslim privilege.

Believe it or not, France did not stop there, whines the author of the article. It worked to drag all of Europe into the demonic scheme of diverting some of the Continent's love from Israel to the Arab causes. To this end, France developed the “Euro-Arab dialogue that began with the Arab League and never stopped … inaugurating a Permanent Mission Office in Brussels to increase cooperation with the European Union”.

All this brings us to Israel's interests. It is that France's disregard for the interests of the Jewish concoction “is more than simple willful blindness. It is complicity.” Milliere goes on to conclude that “France is the main enemy of Israel in the Western world.” The proof is that “it wanted to organize a major conference to relaunch the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.” It also backed a UN resolution demanding the “end of Israeli occupation” and the creation of a Palestinian state.

That leads Guy Milliere to observe that “France's anti-Israel relentlessness can only be seen as the latest extension of France's centuries old anti-Semitism,” And he warns: “French hostility is more present and malignant than ever.” The evidence is that a group of French ambassadors published a manifesto to “save the Palestinian State.” They denounced “fifty years of military and police occupation by Israel, Jewish colonization of Palestinian territories, the shadow of the Holocaust that inhibits Europe, and the apartheid policy of Israel.” It cannot get more comprehensive than that.

Having seen all that, my friend, stop for a moment and think. Ask yourself: Were similar demands made on America's politicians? Of course they were. Did any of that go out to the public? No, it did not. In fact, if it did, it would have been stopped long ago. But the Jews made sure that the censorship they imposed on America for half a century was as tight as what you see in North Korea today. They did not call it Jewish dictatorship; they called it Jewish sensitivities.

The end result is that indecent proposals of the political kind have become the norm in America. The Jew does not even have to make the proposal in person. When he gets the hots, those in the Congress and elsewhere know it is time to get romantic with our “reliable ally in the Middle East”.

Al-Monitor, an Insult to Journalism and to Decency

Let me start by telling what used to happen when I was publishing and editing a small town newspaper.

I used to get press releases from the local politicians telling the local media what they did at the Provincial or Federal level to “bring home the bacon,” so to speak. I would publish them, and so did the other newspapers.

What used to happen at times was that a press release would be sent out from the office of a politician one day and then again a few days later. As editors, we had to watch out for these things because to publish the same story twice would give credit where credit was not due, and in so doing deceive the public, the greatest sin that a publication can commit.

Most of the time, such press releases would be sent out more than once by mistake. At other times, however, they would be sent deliberately in an attempt to catch an editor off-guard, thus embellish the image of the politician for something he did not do. We would know the difference because a press release that was sent by mistake came in the same format each time; whereas the attempt to deceive came in a different format, rewritten to make the project sound like it was something new.

When it happened that an editor got fooled – publishing the same story twice – the other editors would “laugh” at him quietly by writing a story about the project in question; but write it in such a way as to tell the public something new about the same project. However, there would be enough markers in the story to let the editor in question know that he was caught off guard … and that “we're laughing at you”. Of course, all that was done in good spirit, being a kind of internal joke that is peculiar to the industry. The public did not sense anything unusual and would not have appreciated that kind of humor in any case.

I tell this story because there is an online magazine called Al-Monitor that goes too far using small mishaps of the kind that happen regularly in the industry to do to Egypt what is said was done to America on 9/11 when some low-life animals allegedly celebrated the fall of the World Trade Center. That is, the editors of Al-Monitor regularly celebrate the mishaps they say happened to Egypt even when such mishaps are nothing more than the product of their delusional minds.

The latest such celebration came under the title: “Are Egypt's new water discoveries just a distraction?” and the rather lengthy subtitle: “It seems every time Egypt finds itself in a critical position in the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam negotiations, it rushes to announce the discovery of some new groundwater reserve.” Published on February 19, 2016, the article was written by Rami Galal and translated by Sahar Ghoussoub.

What's it all about? It's about ongoing negotiations between the nations of the Nile Basin on how to proceed with their individual developments without hurting the interests of others. And there have always been low-life “journalistic” groups that pointed to tiny developments they spun in such a way as to make them sound like huge things hiding calamitous secrets.

For example, when during the era of Mubarak, some farmers protested they were not allotted enough water to grow their crops, the low life groups said that the protest was staged by the government to impress upon the Nile negotiators the notion that Egypt was suffering from water shortages already. The story now is to the effect that the government is staging the discovery of new water sources to impress upon the Egyptian population that things look rosy when, in reality, they are not. It is that Egypt gets it coming and going from these animals.

Al-Monitor says that in 2012 the government announced the discovery of an underground basin with enough water in it to cultivate 260,000 acres of land. It goes on to say HOWEVER, which is the same as saying BUT “the details of the discovery still haven't been disclosed.” These people can spend their time chasing details of the kind they hunger for in all the places they fantasize about. What is of interest to the public is that land reclamation in the Qattara Depression has started, and that it is ongoing. And the acres are planted as soon as they are readied for cultivation.

Al-Monitor proceeds with another story it says happened last month. It explains that a government minister embarrassed himself by announcing the discovery of a “new” underground basin that was known to be there for decades. It describes the find as being “the already discovered and well-known Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System stretching from Egypt to Sudan, Libya and Chad.”

But then, like idiots eager to hurt Egypt, they try to stretch the story further than it can go; and in the process, shoot themselves in the foot. They find someone whom they say told them: “The underground quantities are known and were publicly estimated years ago. The sources of water do not exceed 132 trillion gallons all over Egypt and they are mostly nonrenewable.” Al-Monitor also has the same man say that the “statement about the massive groundwater discovery is not scientifically proven.” Well, which is it? Is it well known the discovery is real? Or is it not scientifically proven, therefore unreal?

Note also that the estimated reserves are 132 trillion gallons of water. At 264 gallons per cubic meter, it says that the amount comes to 500 billion cubic meters, most of which is nonrenewable. If we assume that only 10 percent of that quantity is renewed every year, it would amount to 50 billion cubic meters, which is close to Egypt's current share of Nile waters. It is as if the country had two Niles; one above ground and one below it.

Having made a mess of their presentation, the idiots begin their macabre celebration by telling a big fat lie. They quote a professor of water resources at Cairo University as telling them: “the water minister wanted to shift public attention from his failed negotiations and distract it with hopes of new water sources in Egypt.” First of all, a scientist would not talk politics. Second of all, given the current climate in Egypt, no one in his right mind would make a statement like that even if it were true.

The editors of Al-Monitor kept the lie because it leads to this delusional celebration “statements made by the Ethiopian foreign minister clearly show Ethiopia will not commit to changing its plans. He believes Ethiopia will not make any concessions to Egypt, especially regarding its share of the Nile water.” These creatures are not human journalists; they are savage animals in human clothing.

Which is why I call on the people who sit on the board of that publication to reconsider their association with that filthy rag. They are: Simon Ayat of Schlumberger; Tony Chase of ChaseSource; Joanna Hitchcock, formerly of the University of Texas Press; Nassif Hitti, observer at UNESCO; David Leebron of Rice University; Andrew Parasiliti of the RAND Corporation; Paul Salem of the Middle East Institute; Denis Simonneau of GDF SUEZ and John Solomon of the Washington Times.

To appease or not to appease

Victor Davis Hanson is certain that the world is passing through a phase which resembles the 1920s, and predicts that the outcome of what's brewing in the world today will resemble what happened then. He believes that the “Western democracies” are treading what he calls “a lethal mix,” a term that is code to mean another calamitous World War is all but inevitable.

On the other hand, Benny Avni fears that because the Turks are not appeasing the Russians, a war between the two is likely. When this happens, says Avni, the NATO alliance will most likely not invoke the clause which says that all the members of the alliance will come to the aid of the one that's engaged with a foe. The result of this reluctance, says Avni, will bring about the end of NATO.

Rejecting appeasement when it is imagined to be there, and fearing it when it is believed to hover overhead – is a typical reaction of people who believe that the human race can never do anything right. Hanson and Avni are such people, and they expand on their thoughts. Each wrote an article, published on the same day February 18, 2016 in a different publication. Hanson's piece came under the title: “The Return of Appeasement, Collaboration, and Isolationism,” appearing in National Review Online. Avni's came under the title: “America's greatest alliance is about to end with a whimper,” appearing in the New York Post.

Hanson is a historian, and he tackles the matter from the historical angle, which is not surprising. What is dubious, however, is that he starts the analysis assuming that the “Western democracies” have a divine right to be policeman of the world. He sees them as having the duty to make sure everyone in the world is behaving as they must or be punished. Because this did not happen in the 1920s, he concludes that the Western democracies were derelict in the discharge of their duties.

Having made that point, he draws a parallel between the situation as it exists today and that era. He points to Iran, China, North Korea and what he calls the radical Islamic terrorist groups, with yesterday's Nazi Germany and the Axis nations. He goes on to say that now as then, the bad guys “all have particular contempt for Western democracies.”

But having narrated a past during which time the Nazis (1) “annexed Austria, dismembered Czechoslovakia and invaded Europe,” (2) “Josef Stalin attacked the Poles from the east,” and (3) “the two dictatorships divvied up the country [of Poland],” you wonder if today's display of contempt by Iran, China and the rest, rises to the level of violence that sparked the Second World War. So you look closely to see what exactly today's contempt has entailed, according to Hanson.

You find that he says this: “Various nations or organizations shoot off intercontinental missiles, board America boats, send millions of young male into the West, and issue unending threats. China is creating new artificial islands … Putin cuts deals with Iran, Syria, and most of the enemies of the West.” Well, if the allies armed themselves and fought against the Axis in the period that followed the 1920s, is Hanson suggesting that NATO, which is well armed now, should preemptively attack the foes he is naming?

As to Benny Avni, he begins by reminding the readers of the fact that Russia and Turkey had empires, and that they fought each other for something like four centuries. This said, he asserts that Putin of Russia and Erdogan of Turkey “dream of returning their countries to glories of empires past.” Because of this, Avni is certain that “everything” can go wrong in the current situation.

He goes on to explain that all the players in the Syrian conflict (Russia, Turkey, the United States, Syria, the Kurds and the Syrian Kurds) are angry with each other, and exchanging hot words. This is why, says Avni, “diplomats tell me France and other allies are warning the hot words will soon turn into a hot war.”

When this happens, says he, no one in NATO will rush to Turkey's aid because “We don't do wars anymore, remember?” He goes on to explain that NATO is the weakest link in the Syrian war, which he describes as being a mini-world war already.

But will Secretary of State, John Kerry be able to arrange a ceasefire? “No chance. Not as long as America chooses to sit this war out,” says Benny Avni. The consequence will be the demise of NATO, and the usual blaming of things that happened, and those that didn't happened on the peacemaker whom these people love to crucify: “The alliance may end with a whimper. When it does, Obama can add NATO's demise to his foreign policy legacy.”

That is, Benny Avni is warning that unless America gets hotly involved in the Syrian mini-war, Obama will not be able to prevent a confrontation from happening between Russia and Turkey. NATO will die, and Obama will have added another failure to his unending list of failures. Perfect logic; can't you see?

The Nile that's the Lifeblood of East Africa

This discussion is about an article by Daniel Pipes concerning the waters of the Nile. But before I get to that, I need to go on a long tangent, and explain something that is pertinent to the discussion.

Even though the population of Egypt has increased to about 90 million people, the country remains, in dollar terms, a net exporter of agricultural products and processed foods. There is what is called the “green corridor,” a shipping lane that takes Egyptian foods by the shiploads to Italy; and from there to the rest of Western Europe. In addition to that, because Turkey has had a falling out with Russia, Egypt has replaced Turkey, supplying Russia with fresh fruits and vegetables. And there is also the fact that negotiations began between Egypt and the United States for the sale of surplus Egyptian agricultural products and processed foods to America.

Egypt has been the breadbasket of the “Old World” since before the pyramids were built. And the one thing the people of that country will not tolerate is being dependent on someone for their food supply. They have always been self-sufficient in everything they ate, and they wish to remain that way for ever. The system worked nicely for them while the Jewish-inspired West was waging economic war on them. It forced them to rely on their ingenuity; and they came up with ideas that quintupled (yes, it means multiply by 5) the yield of certain crops.

But then the world economies went global at the same time that the center of economic gravity was shifting to the Orient. That being the place where Jewish influence is nil, the government of Egypt decided to join the crowd and go global despite the protestations that came from several directions. Almost overnight, Egypt became a nation that depends on trade.

This meant the economy had to become sufficient to compete against the other nations. It forced the Egyptians to do what everyone does – specialize in the areas where they have an advantage while leaving to others the areas in which they are disadvantaged. This approach applies to agriculture as much as it does to manufacturing and the service industries. Some people liked the idea; others did not. The result has been the sparking of a big debate; one that started decades ago and continues to this day.

Where there is a debate in Egypt, there are passions that can get as heated as with politicians running to be president in America. And where you have passion, you have spins, exaggerations and lies. Here is how things can happen in Egypt some of the time. (1) A correspondent writes in a local tabloid that he went to a store and could not find lentils on the shelves. (2) A provincial official complains loudly that the local silos can only store 30 percent of the beans consumed locally. (3) The minister of supply says that the country produced 9.5 million tons of wheat this year, and imported less that 5 million tons.

What happens subsequent to that is the stuff that gives politics a bad name. For example, a politician or pundit from an opposition group would gather that kind of information, spins it, twists it and tells the public he has statistics that will blow its mind. He explains that Egypt imports 100 percent of its need in lentils, 70 percent of the beans it consumes, 70 percent of the wheat that feeds the nation, and so on and so forth.

That kind of talk makes the day for someone like Daniel Pipes. Ashamed of the non-stop television presentations showing hungry Jewish families in Israel receiving food aid from a rabbi that begs his Christian fellows for more aid, Pipes and those like him, write articles using statistics that are demonstrably false. The goal is to tell the Jewish rank and file in America they should rejoice because Egypt is not doing better than Israel. Dream on.

Now, to the waters of the Nile. The yearly precipitation in Central Africa amounts to 1.5 trillion cubic meters of water. The combined consumption of all the nations in the Nile Basin does not exceed 150 billion cubic meters. That's 10 percent of the available water, and the rest goes to waste. Of the amount that's used, Egypt receives about a third (55 billion cubic meters).

The talks about the Nile waters and other subjects are ongoing among the nations of the Basin, and a few of the other neighbors. The discussion touches on all sorts of joint projects that will be undertaken bilaterally and multilaterally in agriculture, industry, power generation and power distribution, health, education and what have you. The biggest part of the discussion centers on the means to collect a good part of the precipitation in the region, thus be in a position to raise the share of water allotted to every country.

As long as Jewish America is kept at bay, that epic saga will have a happy ending.

They want America to be a genocidal Maniac

It happens at times that a pyromaniac gets a job as firefighter and sets fire to many places without stirring suspicion. It also happens at times that a pedophile becomes a priest or boot-camp manager and has easy access to children he abuses at will. And it happens at times that genocidal maniacs appear to advocate prevention of genocide by actually inciting the feeble minds to commit genocide. Finally, it happens all the time that the Jews keep inciting America to become the foremost serial genocidal maniac of all time.

To advocate genocide has been the history of the Jews since their beginning. It's what their religion – described in the Old Testament – is about and nothing else. Were it not for the “Political Correctness” of our time, every historian would now be writing about the work that the Jews have done throughout history to pit people against people, and start the wars that benefited their leaders. Needless to say that such benefit came at the expense of much misery suffered by their own rank and file and by the rest of the human race.

The biggest genocidal scheme they engineered after the Second World War has been the Rwandan horror. They did it trying to get control of the Nile River at its source. Their aim was to place themselves in a position to inflict plagues on Egypt of the sort they have been dreaming about since the days of Moses, and praying for at Passover each and every year ever since.

They got the chance to pull off their trick when the Egyptian diplomat, Boutros Ghali became Secretary General of the United Nations (UN). To understand what happened there, we need to recall that tribal wars had been common in Africa since the end of the colonial era. The UN had been a big factor at mediating the underlying disputes; also quelling the wars that erupted by engaging in negotiations, and positioning peace keeping forces between the combatants.

Seeing the possibility of killing two birds with one stone, the Jews pitted the Rwandan tribes against each other, and pitted the American Congress against the UN of Boutros Ghali. They ignited the Rwandan genocide, and got the American Congress of low-life dogs and diseased cockroaches to accuse the UN of being inefficient.

They used that fake accusation as an excuse to turn the Congress into a beast of burden dedicated to the realization of the Judeo-Israeli agenda. And they worked like animals to make sure that Boutros Ghali does not serve a second term at the UN. To this end, they barked that the UN must not intervene in Rwanda despite the ongoing Jewish-engineered genocide. And Ghali was unable to stop that tsunami of Jewish hate and incitement.

The Jews have, since that time, continued to use America's money, power and prestige to pit the tribes of the Nile Basin against each other, especially those in the Sudan. It is that – true to form – the Jews have not lost hope they will someday get lucky and set the region on fire the way they did in Iraq and Libya. To this end, they are scheming to topple the existing governments, expecting that a civil war will erupt in each country. They believe that when this happens, Israel will automatically become the local hegemon.

You get a sense of how the Jews play that game when you parse the article which came under the title: “Bystanders to genocide” and the subtitle: “President Obama and his team promised to do better,” written by Clifford D. May and published in The Washington Times on February 16, 2016. Note that May calls himself president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. This is an appellation that has come to mean the foundation serving as pyromaniac for Planet Earth, and pedophile for humanity.

Note also the shamelessness with which the writer flatters Obama of the US, Cameron of the UK and Sarkozy of France for turning Libya into a genocidal arena of the kind that only a Jew can love. And note how he chastises Obama for not repeating the performance in Syria when he had the opportunity.

May also chastises the US President for the “precipitate withdrawal from Iraq,” contending that the war in that country continues to this day because Obama withdrew American forces from there. Of course, he does not realize that someone with an IQ equal to that of a monkey will see that the war in Afghanistan started well before Iraq and continues to this day.

Instead of securing order and stability for that country, the deteriorating situation compelled even Obama, the peacemaker, to send additional troops in an effort to counter an insurgency that never goes away. It stands to reason, therefore, that a situation of the same kind would have prevailed in Iraq but with a difference.

Given the geographic placement of Iraq, the country would have looked like Afghanistan on steroid. And that's what the Jews would have liked to see. It is why Clifford May would have praised Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy. Being a Jew, he will continue to hope to eternity.

Creating jobs ... where to begin?

Under the title: “It's the jobs, stupids,” the editors of the New York Daily News have published a piece on February 14, 2016 in which they argue that the American economy must be made to create jobs.

They discuss what the two parties in America have done for the economy in the recent past, and rebuke them both. They also discuss what the contenders to the presidency of the United States are now saying, and dismiss them all as inconsequential.

Well, maybe we should try something else. Suppose you are given a magic wand to do with it the one thing you want most. As it happens you want to create jobs for a large number of people – good paying jobs if at all possible. What you try to avoid, however, is create side effects that will be so negative, they end up offsetting the positive accomplishments of job creation.

And so, you give yourself a few minutes to reflect on what you'll do before waving the wand and letting its magic take effect. The first thing that comes to mind is the old saying about hiring the unemployed to dig holes in the ground and filling them again. This will allow them to earn some money, you reason … money they will inject into the economy and help stimulate it thus benefit other people too.

But you decide not to do that because the scheme will increase the money supply without increasing the wealth underlying it. This will create inflation whose impact will be that of taking from everyone in society, and giving it to those who are not doing productive work. This leads you to the idea that instead of digging holes and filling them, why not have the unemployed build roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, seaports and all sorts of useful infrastructure projects?

You decide this is a better idea, but it has the same problem as the previous one. That's because the people who will get paid producing the infrastructure projects will not spend the money they earn buying those projects. Instead, they will spend it to buy the consumer items that everyone else is buying. And this will cause inflation to rise the same as before.

You do not reject that idea offhand but keep it on the table while trying to refine your thinking. You now hit on the idea that the best thing to do is to get the unemployed in jobs that will produce the goods and services that they and the rest of society will buy. This would be perishable goods such as processed foods and cosmetics, durable goods such as home furnishings and appliances, and big ticket items such as cars and homes.

And so you see that in this way, the money supply will grow but so will the amount of goods and services it will be chasing. In this case, inflation may not be completely stamped out but will be kept under control.

You reason it will be a good idea to proceed in that manner. In fact, you feel that the idea is so good, you can have some of the unemployed work on the infrastructure that will be needed to facilitate, among other things, the production of the cosmetics, the home appliances, the cars and the rest.

Yes, you do realize that this development will contribute to the creation of some inflation in the rest of the economy, but it will be small compared to the real growth it will be responsible for. In fact, a little inflation in a growing economy will be welcomed by those who live on the interest they earn when lending the money they spent a lifetime accumulating.

You feel good, but you still don't know how to use the one wish you are allowed to make. You concentrate your thinking and hit on the notion that a mature industrial economy is made of 60 percent services, 25 percent construction and utilities, and 15 percent manufacturing. That is, every dollar that's created in manufacturing ripples through the economy, and creates another 6 or 7 dollars worth of services and construction.

And so, you settle on the thing to do. You wave the magic wand, and create jobs in the manufacturing sector. This done, you expect the economy to work its own magic and generate all sorts of other jobs, much of which will be good paying jobs.

The Meaning of a Piece that's pointless

Read the news-item/opinion-piece that was put out by the Associated Press (AP), and was carried by several publications, among them the New York Times (NYT) which published the thing under the title: “Amid Multitude of Woes, Egypt's Leader Says Democracy Is Back,” on February 13, 2016.

Being a news agency, the AP is supposed to only gather news and purvey it – which it does most of the time – except when the item which it carries is related to Egypt (at times another Arab or Muslim country.) This happens because the English speaking information outlets were designed by the Jewish hate and incitement machine in such a way as never to think or say something that's not derogatory about those countries.

This is why you begin with a headline that does not say: “Egypt's Leader Says Democracy Is Back” but one that opines: “Amid Multitude of Woes...” The pertinent news item then appears in the first paragraph of the article, not as a stand alone item, but one that's joined by the infamous Jewish signature BUT, to then go on and say “but rights groups say he [el-Sisi] has presided over a crackdown on dissent.” And that sets the tone for the way that the rest of the article is handled. In one word: it is abominable.

They say that President el-Sisi gave a speech in a parliament chamber that was “packed with his supporters,” and they begin the next paragraph in such a way as to tie the current condition with “practices reminiscent of Egypt's past autocratic regimes.” If you want to know what it is that's stirring the bile of the journalists who sired the news/editorial hybrid, they don't let you down. They tell you it is that: “state television labeled the speech 'historic' before it started”. What happened there? Did they get an advance copy of the speech?

Worse, “some lawmakers [put on] a show of patriotism," say the writers of the article. Other lawmakers shouted to the President 'We love you.'” Imagine! How much worse can those Egyptians get? What? Are you talking to me? Do you really want to know how much worse those Egyptians can get? Let me tell you how much worse. Here, take this: “When the speech was later interrupted by the same chant, he replied: 'I love you too.'” Whoa! What's wrong with these people? Are they having a lovefest or something? Why can they not hate their President the way that the Congress of America hates Obama?

Perhaps what's wrong with all this, is the fact that el-Sisi himself has acknowledged “the country is still struggling to rebuild its economy and combat extremism.” However, undaunted by any of it, he went on to declare that the country “succeeded in restoring representative government,” then added: “From this place, the Egyptian people declare to the world they have laid the foundation of a democratic system and rebuilt constitutional institutions.”

Is this why the man is proud of his accomplishments? Does he not know that the dictatorship of Zion is more valuable than the instructions given to him by a democratic mob? He should be surrounding himself with Jewish advisers to tell him what to do, not listen to the voice of his people. What kind of a leader is he?

If, despite all this, you still think that Sisi's stuff is great stuff, wait till you see what the AP/NYT journalists say about it. Are you ready? Here it comes: “the speech largely consisted of generalities and was repeatedly interrupted by applause.” So what! you exclaim; most speeches are full of generalities. No, no, no, protest the Anglophile journalists of America, it's not the generalities that are irritating; it's the applause, stupid. Applause?

You ask: What's wrong with the applause? And they tell you to look closely who the Egyptians were applauding; it was their own president, they say. Well, who else should it be, you ask? And they scream at you: Look what happens in America, you idiot. There is only one soul deserving of 29 standing ovations. He comes to his private WC, a Witless Congress that is a place where the walls are full of anti-Obama graffiti, and where Netanyahu gets applauded. That's how the whole world is meant to function … and will someday.

And look. Look what's happening in Egypt, they tell you. Do you know what that is? Listen to angry journalists tell you about police brutality in that country. Can you believe what the police do in Egypt? They don't do the good stuff that's done in America:

They don't pump dozens of bullets in the back of an aging man that's running away from them. They don't kill a twelve year old boy because someone telephoned to say he was playing with a toy gun in the park. And they don't shove an innocent man in their van so hard, they break his collar bone and let him die as he cries out for medical attention.

No, they don't do any of that in Egypt. Instead, they allegedly beat up two doctors. It's only an allegation … and it's not that they killed someone, but that they beat up two individuals. How much more brutal can they get?

Instead of giving a speech about police brutality – complain the Anglophile journalists – Sisi has given one that was full of generalities. And their bile has started churning in their stomachs.