There is an old saying that goes
like this: When dog bites man, that's not news. When man bites dog; that's
news. By the same token when humans stage a show in which they imitate animals;
that's not news. When animals stage an editorial sitting in which they imitate
humans; that's news.
So how do you know that an animal
is an animal imitating a human being? The answer is that you design an
experiment. You get a dog and train it to bark at a certain human individual.
You let that individual do a few things, such as try to trespass your property,
and the dog will bark at him. You take the dog on a walk, having arranged to
cross the human, and the dog will bark at him on sight. In a final test, you
tell a child to pretend drowning in the swimming pool. The human appears on the
scene and tries to rescue the child. Even then, the dog will bark to chase the
human away. That's when you know that the dog is an animal.
And that, my friend, is how the
Jews have trained the editors of the New York Times to write editorials. Their
latest came under the title: “Egypt 's
Guidelines for Repression,” a piece that was published on May 6, 2016. They
were trained to bark at the country's President, and they do so every time they
get a glimpse of him.
This time they admit at the end of
the editorial that “it is not clear whether Mr. Sisi has full control over the
political repression, abduction, torture and other human-rights violations
ascribed to the security services.” So you would think they must have started
the piece the way that a human being would. But no, that's not how they started
the editorial. Here is how they barked at the first sight of the man they were programmed
to hate: “President el-Sisi of Egypt
appears to be running an incompetent regime”.
Whoa! How bad is that? What
happened that would prompt a large newspaper half a world away to thunder such
a powerful bark? You really want to know what it was? Okay, I'll tell you what
it was. It was this: “On Tuesday, the Interior Ministry accidentally released
confidential guidelines...” Wow! Can you believe there has been a leak – an
accidental one at that – out of a department? Where else in the world but
“incompetent” Egypt
would something as serious and grave and dangerous as that happen? Never heard
of it till now. Well, like they say, there is a first for everything, and Egypt
had to be the first.
But wait. That's not even the full
story. Look how the sentence continues “...to stop critical reporting by the
news media, including instructions not to admit mistakes and a proposed rule to
stop all coverage related to the murder of a student.” That's it, man. That
tells you this government is more than incompetent. I mean, if you're going to
be a repressive regime, you don't instruct your people not to admit mistakes;
you tell them to lie and lie as would a pathological liar running to be
President of the United
States . That's how to be a respected liar.
But seriously, how can the
editorial dogs at the New York Times make such a big fuss out of so little, and
then end their piece with a plea that's as consequential as this: “It's time
for President Obama to make clear to Egypt's rulers that the United States will
not continue pumping military aid into a regime at war with its own people”?
Surely, even a dog would realize that the gap between telling someone not to
admit mistakes, and a regime being at war with one's own people, is so wide –
the reaction that the dogs propose is not warranted by the action that was
committed by a human being, however imperfect he may have been.
And that's where the rest of the
piece tells you what goes on inside the editorial doghouse of the New York
Times. You don't even need to see a leaked memo to realize what “hidden” forces
are active in that sorry place. Look at this: “The leak offered evidence of the
government's brutal and destructive approach to the wave of discontent sweeping
Egypt .”
So you want to know what wave of discontent, that is. And they tell you this:
“The trigger for the current
protests was the transfer of two uninhabited islands to Saudi Arabia …
the transfer provoked a furious reaction from Egyptians who believed the
government was peddling Egyptian land for Saudi dollars. The demonstrations led
to arrests and confrontation with journalists who rallied in Cairo demanding the dismissal of the interior
minister”.