The benign, the confusing and the pure evil

What kind of relationship can there be between a dissident and his government in the aftermath of an attempted invasion that the country was able to push back? What if the country continues to live under the threat of being invaded yet again, and the threat of being sabotaged by internal traitors posing as legitimate dissidents?

How does this situation compare against the relationship that may exist between an oppressed citizenry and the military setup that invaded the country … and continues to occupy it several generations later?

To put it in practical terms, how does the treatment of dissidents in Cuba compare with the treatment that's inflicted on a Palestinian population, born under Jewish occupation and living in total humiliation as well as abject privation ever since?

Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal wrote a column to tell America about a Cuban dissident who was sent to jail, came out of jail, refused to go into exile, and is now corresponding with Stephens and other people around the globe from his home in Cuba. The column came under the title: “Fidel's Legacy – A Dissident's View” and the subtitle: “A survivor of Cuba's own Gitmo has a word for those mourning the late dictator.” It was published on November 29, 2016 in the Journal.

Here is what the Cuban said to Stephens: “Wardens in lower-security prisons use inmates as laborers in agriculture or construction. Inmates in maximum-security prisons are stuffed into tiny cells and allowed an hour of sunlight a day. Political prisoners 'face constant terror. A prisoner has a bad molar. He complains. He gets beaten up. No medical attention'”.

What a relief to learn that in Cuba, wardens and interrogators do not behave in the manner of “Abu-Ghraib” where the Iraqi inmates were forced to stage homosexual group rape on each other while their American jailers were celebrating. These characters were so jovial, in fact, they took photographs of several scenes to communicate their delight at what they considered to be the glorious achievements of Dick Cheney's new and improved American military now under Jewish management and tutelage.

Let's leave that and review what is happening on a daily basis in occupied Palestine. The stationing of the Israeli military in the West Bank, complete with checkpoints and observation posts, turns the place into a war zone. That is, for half a century, Israel has been conducting an ongoing military operation against the people of Palestine who have lived on that piece of real estate since the beginning of time.

In criminal violation of the Geneva Convention, of international laws and of several Security Council resolutions, Israel imports mostly American losers who couldn't make it where they were born and raised, and places them where they can ethnically cleanse the occupied territories. It arms these murderous hooligans, trains them, finances them and lets them settle the land they cleanse of its indigenous population. Israel instructs the hooligans to acquire, by hook and by crook, the properties of the unarmed Palestinian farmers who have nothing with which to protect themselves or their families or their properties.

Palestinian kids who were born and raised on the soil of their patrimony – now turned into a Jewish hell – live under so much pressure, they snap occasionally and attack the Jewish settlers and the Israeli soldiers accompanying them. But the balance of armament between the two antagonists is so tilted in favor of the Jews; it happens that for every Jew that gets hurt or killed, dozens of Palestinians get murdered. This is the price that people who live under hellish conditions are forced to pay when they reach the boiling point of absolute despair.

The promise is that there will be more of the same because there exist properties, underground water and other riches that the Jews covet and plan to grab from their Palestinian owners. To speed up the process, the settlers provoke the Palestinians who respond by throwing stones at Jewish tanks and armored vehicles. This gives the Israeli army the excuse to demolish the homes of Palestinians, a first step in the cycle that ends with the property being taken and permanently occupied by Jewish newcomers.

That is the difference between the Cuban status quo and the Palestinian status quo. Now the question: What are the choices available to the Cuban dissidents, and what are the choices available to the Palestinian people?

The Cuban dissidents are told this is their country where the majority of the people obey the law of the land and live normal lives. They too can adapt and become a part of that society, or they can leave.

As to the Palestinians, they are told they will never get back their properties. They can continue to protest and most certainly die sooner or later, or they can hand their properties to the Jews, thus help cleanse the place by withdrawing themselves from it.

Now you know why Jews of the Bret Stephens variety jump on every occasion to exaggerate and highlight the shortcoming of others. It is their way to divert attention from themselves, the original calamity that has been plaguing the planet since the start of history.

Is it Dogma or is it pernicious Peer Pressure?

Why would the editors of a publication as illustrious as the Wall Street Journal commit journalistic hari-kari before making an important point, thus lose credibility and defeat their own argument before they even start?

Are these people so gripped by the power of dogma, they have a difficult time admitting they can still be motivated by human empathy? Or is it that their behavior is nothing more than the manifestation of juvenile peer pressure acting on adults whose time has come to descend into senility?

Amid a chorus of voices emanating from the four corners of the globe eulogizing Cuba's Fidel Castro who passed away at the age of 90, most American voices trashed the man's memory even though he never erected a single checkpoint in Cuba, and never congratulated a soldier that shot an injured boy in the head.

The response of those Americans is unusual, to say the least, but is not the worst that can happen to a dead man that can no longer defend himself. Actually, the worst that did happen came from the editors of the Wall Street Journal who went beyond trashing Castro's lifework.

Putting the cart before the horse is a human weakness of character that is usually not a serious thing in itself unless the act is done deliberately, and done for the purpose of breaching the principle of causality. And this is what the editors of the Journal did in the piece they wrote under the title: “Fidel Castro's Communist Utopia” and the subtitle: “He turned a developing Cuba into an impoverished prison.” That piece was published on November 28, 2016 in the Journal.

Here is what the editors did that is unforgivable. They wrote: “Castro took power [after] toppling dictator Fulgencio Batista. He soon revealed that his goal was to impose Communist rule. He exiled clergy, took over catholic schools and expropriated businesses … An attempt by the CIA and a force of expatriate Cubans to overthrow Castro was crushed at the Bay of Pigs in a fiasco for [America's] Kennedy Administration. Castro aligned himself with the Soviet Union”.

What's wrong with that? What's wrong is that the editors began the description of what happened with what may be called a preemptive lie. They invented a fictitious horse, which is this: Castro's goal from the start was to impose Communist rule. Behind this fake horse, they placed what they want you to believe is a cart: the CIA attempted to overthrow the regime. But in reality, this was not the cart; it was the horse behind which came the inevitable cart: Castro aligned himself with the Soviet Union.

Do you see how these people violated the principle of causality and almost got away with it? Instead of saying that the invasion of Cuba caused Castro to turn to the Soviet Union, they said that Castro intended all along to impose Communist rule. As to the invasion; what invasion? Do you really believe that a harmless invasion could have motivated Castro to turn to the Soviet Union? And it was around that dishonesty that they built their case.

Worse, they did not stop there. They went on to compound their cowardice by not attributing the Bay of Pigs fiasco to what is fundamentally an ingrained deficiency in America's foreign policy. Instead, they attributed the fiasco to a Democratic Administration, the point being that if a Republican were in the White House at the time, the result would have been different.

Little did they know – or cared to know – that before there was a Democratic John Kennedy in the White House, there was a Republican John Foster Dulles at the State Department. He too caused Egypt to turn to the Soviet Union for help when – responding to Jewish bribes and blackmail – he went out of his way to pressure the World Bank to refuse extending a line of credit to Egypt. The country needed that facility to build the Aswan Dam and power station, a project that was more important for the country than anything done before.

Such behavior is not specific to one party or the other; it is bipartisan because it is purely American. You see, my friend, America is plagued by three groups: the Cubans, the Jews and the Taiwanese. The Cubans caused the rift between America and Cuba. The Jews caused the rift between America and the Arab/Muslim world. The Taiwanese caused the rift between America and China. But thanks to President Nixon, the situation with China did not get out of hand.

But why is it that America's political and media types behave the way they do? Sadly, it can only be dogma that transcends the entire Right/Left spectrum, or it can be peer pressure of the pernicious kind. And what could that be but bribes and blackmail … the carrot and the stick of a democracy that is sliding into senility?

A quick Primer on Egypt's Economy

Steven A. Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote an article that appeared in several publications around the middle of November, 2016. It was published originally under the title: “Egypt's Economic Reform” and the subtitle: “The Good and the Bad”.

The article is composed under several rubrics, one being: “Making Egypt competitive again?” Note the question mark. It indicates that there is doubt the devaluation of the currency will help make Egypt competitive. Why is that? Well, Cook writes a long paragraph (160 words) to explain it. The crucial part of the explanation comes near the end of the paragraph. It says this:

“Egypt has to import the intermediary components of the few goods it exports. The high price of intermediate goods may erase the export advantages of devaluation … Egypt does not manufacture substitutes for the components it imports. The net effect on economic growth could be limited”.

It is obvious that Cook is here discussing only the manufactured goods that Egypt exports. He then makes two mistakes that show he had bad advice. He began by saying that Egypt exports only few goods. You may ask compared to what? Well, a good answer would be: compared to the size of the economy. In fact, that's what he had in mind because he ends the paragraph like this: “The effect on economic growth could be limited”.

We now look at the two mistakes. One is this: “Egypt does not manufacture substitutes for the components it imports.” Of course, you silly whatever! It goes without saying that Egypt wouldn't import them if it manufactured them. By the way, this is the negative effect of globalization; if someone has an advantage in something, you buy it from him cheaper than you can make it. As to the other mistake; it is this: “The high price of intermediate goods may erase the export advantages of devaluation.” Much can be said about that, so let's give it a shot. The best way to illustrate what's involved here is to take an example.

Think of two comparable economies in Europe ... France and Italy for example. A French manufacturer of tires that has been selling to French car makers receives an order from an Italian car maker. The tire maker sells to the Italian at the price he sells to the French. But what does the French car maker do normally? Well, he adds a markup on the tires to cover “handling” when computing the price of the complete car before he sells it. And so will the Italian car maker. All things being equal, neither gains something that the other doesn't.

Now think of an Egyptian car manufacturer who – to begin with – is mandated by law to have at least 45% Egyptian content in the car (soon to be 60%.) That would be his value-added which is also Egypt's value-added. Thus, when the currency is devalued, he gains an advantage on that portion of the finished product. But does he gain something from paying more in local currency to buy the tires and then sell them also for more when they are added to the car? The answer is yes, he gains something because the “handling” part is an additional Egyptian value-added that benefits just as well from the devaluation of the currency.

Now, when the Egyptian pound was pegged at a high value, you could say that the Central Bank of Egypt practiced currency manipulation. The thing is, nobody complained because the pound was manipulated upward, not downward. When the Bank decided to let the pound float – which caused it to devalue – it legitimately did what the currency manipulators do to gain advantage over everyone else. Thus, for Steven Cook to say that the devaluation of the currency will not help export, says that he may get a thank you note from the cheating manipulators because that's the false argument they have been putting forward.

We now look at the last sentence in that paragraph: “The effect on economic growth could be limited.” This requires that we look at the structure of the Egyptian economy to see what's happening. Because the Egyptians have so far relied on their large population to grow the economy, you'll find that it is structured differently from the Asian tigers that rely on export to grow. Whereas industry (mostly manufacturing) represents 25% to 35% of these economies, that of Egypt hovers around 15%, a high value compared to where it was when a purely agrarian economy. So how did it get there?

As the standard of living began to rise in Egypt at the end of the 1973 war, people began to purchase cars, appliances and home entertainment units in such quantities that the local manufacturers could not meet the demand. The fastest way to increase their production was to team up with foreign manufacturers. The latter responded by building factories in Egypt, and producing locally for the local market. Shortly thereafter, they started to export when the supply exceeded the demand. After that, the foreign manufacturers started to build factories in Egypt that were large enough to satisfy both the local and export markets.

It is important to understand that when a manufacturer begins an operation in a foreign country, he brings-in the components – called intermediate goods – from the home country, and assembles them where they are consumed. He gradually manufactures more and more of the components locally or buys them from local suppliers. If he does not do so voluntarily, the government mandates a minimum level of local content.

These developments are the norm in Egypt at this time. There are literally thousands of large international corporations building factories in the industrial zones that the government has prepared for them. Right now, the bulk of the country's exports is made of textiles, furniture, raw and processed foods, pharmaceuticals, building materials and petrochemicals – most of which are produced with indigenous raw materials.

While the plan is to expand on these industries, the next phase (already underway to fully industrialize the country) consists of forging ahead with the production and export of home appliances, electronics, hi-tech industries, precision instruments, transport machinery, as well as construction, farm and mining equipment.

Thus, while the devaluation of the pound may have a limited effect on the country's export at this time, the effect will grow in tandem with the growth in export.

A Crisis of U.S. Journalism, not that of Egypt

The cheapest trick in the book for second rate journalists to sound more important than they are, is to look around for something that's about to happen, pretend not to know that, and advocate it.

If what they advocated happens, they take credit and pat themselves on the back publicly. If it doesn't happen, which is a possibility – well then, it is too bad. They do not remind the readers they advocated something that didn't happen, and move on till another opportunity presents itself.

This scenario has been repeating itself lately with journalists who are not exactly household names. Very few readers would have noticed what they were saying because the airwaves and the print media were filled with so much noise, their voices came out no louder than a faint squeak that's trying to compete against the roar of a passing train that keeps passing without end.

The latest opportunity these characters tried to seize is the situation in Egypt. They and others like them spent the last five years yodeling the macabre refrain: the end is near for Egypt; the end is near for Egypt. When this did not happen, and the country came out the bottleneck intact, they began to suspect something, having felt a collision involving a massive boot and their behind.

Perhaps a mentor that is way smarter than they was explaining to them that when a country goes through an experience such as that and survives, the pent-up demand for goods and services is so huge, it spurs economic activities that trigger a chain reaction. New businesses are established, jobs are created, investments in new ventures take off like a rocket, and all of that will propel Egypt to the forefront of the nations enjoying the highest economic rate of growth.

Yes, that's cool. But instead of these characters doing what they do normally which is to start an echo chamber and repeat what their mentor has told them about a bright future opening to Egypt, they continued to paint a picture of an Egypt that's about to go under. This gave them the opportunity to advocate doing something to save the country. To this end, they pleaded with the incoming American administration to get involved with Egypt and do its part because things are dire with America's “important ally in the region.” Whether or not America will listen to them, they plan to take credit when the Egyptian economy takes off like a rocket.

One of the most bizarre pleas came from Bel Trew who sounds so hungry to be noticed, the editors of the most beastly of the journalistic beasts – one named The Daily Beast – knew exactly under what freakish headline to put her article. They chose this formulation: “Trump's Crisis Nobody Is Talking About Is in Egypt,” published on November 16, 2016 in The Daily Beast.

Not only did the editors act this badly, they added an editorial note disguised as a subtitle. It went something like this: “America's Trump and Egypt's Sisi have good rapport. But will that put food on the table of 20 million hungry Egyptians.” Well, my friend let it be said that this will not sound funny to the 50 million Americans who are on food stamps – some of whom go to bed having had nothing to eat, and children who go to school having had no breakfast.

These people never saw the beastly editors advocate anything for them, yet here they are advocating for the 1.5 million families that receive food subsidies in Egypt. Yes, life is not fair like they say, but when your own people are unfair to you while going out of their way to be fair to foreigners, you wonder if they are not beasts in reality, and not in name only.

Back to Bel Trew. What did she do? She went to a small village in the poorest area of Egypt where she met the most destitute man in the village, and interviewed him. He is a construction worker with five children who says he did not work full time for a year. He does odd jobs for now, and receives aid from private charities as well as food parcels distributed by the government, he says.

He used to get by, he goes on to say, but now that the IMF has imposed conditions on Egypt before accepting its application for a loan, it is becoming even more difficult to get by. Prices have increased dramatically in response to the IMF demand to float the currency, he explains. He still gets by, however, and his real complaint is that “it is not right, they should give me a way of making my own living, not reduce me to living off gifts”.

What Bel Trew did not say is that the effect of the IMF giving Egypt its seal of approval will open the floodgate of investments to come into the new economic tiger that Egypt promises to become. And that's where you sense the beastly nature of The Daily Beast. Instead of tackling the subject from the angle of investments coming into the country and creating the jobs that will employ that man, they go off on a tangent that might amuse a twelve year-old but not a well adjusted eighteen-year old. That's what journalism has become in America.

There is a crisis alright, but it is not that of an Egypt that continued to register economic growth despite the successive calamities that hit it, and the difficulties that hit the rest of the world. The real crisis is that of an American journalistic tradition that was flushed down the Jewish toilet, and cannot find a way to come out.

Wishful Thinking turning into Obsession

Look at this passage: “He is likely to get even stronger support. But it's unlikely that he can succeed in stabilizing the economy. The bet on him is not likely to pay off”. There are two “likelies” and one “unlikely” in this supposedly confident presentation. That should tell you what kind of presentation it is.

The three quoted sentences are not an observation followed by analysis followed by a conclusion. No. It is the whining of an exuberant expectation that came crashing with a loud thud, offering no hope it will get back on its feet. What remains after the wishful thinking has evaporated is an obsession that refuses to die.

The above 29-word quotation is a small part of the 86-word closing paragraph with which the editors of the Washington Post end their argument concerning the situation in Egypt. They had visions of an Egypt – the most populous Arab country – going the way of Iraq, Libya and Syria, gifting them with images of a million dead, millions of refugees fleeing the country, and enough misery to pump an ocean of joy into their sick hearts, their diseased minds, and their decomposing souls. When none of this happened, they sat down, curled up and cried.

The editorial of whine and bitterness came under the title: “A bad bet on Egypt's strongman,” published on November 24, 2016 in the Washington Post. Like the sickos who came before them (I dare say also those who will come after them,) the editors of the Washington Post gathered false pieces of information, which they claim are related to the Egyptian economy, and constructed an argument around them that is as shallow as they are embarrassingly useless journalists.

They say this: “He [Sisi] squandered tens of billions of dollars provided by Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf allies on wasteful mega-projects, such as a new channel for the Suez Canal.” Because it is widely known that the Suez Canal project was entirely financed with local currency – not with dollars that came from abroad – the editors cannot claim they were not aware of this reality.

So then, we must ask: Why are they repeating the falsehood that foreign money was used on the Canal project? They are repeating it because they are desperate. They have nothing solid on which to stand for saying “meanwhile, he [Sisi] conducted the most sweeping campaign against dissent,” and so they latched onto a straw and used it to make a point that's as flimsy as they are embarrassingly useless journalists.

We know what their current obsession is. But how, in practice, did they envisage realizing their exuberant wishful thinking before it became an obsession? Well, there is a passage in the article that provides a clue as to what they had in mind: “The regime began rushing a new law through parliament that would destroy what remains of independent civil society groups … Five-year prison terms are mandated for anyone cooperating with a foreign organization or conducting opinion polls without prior approval.” That says it all.

It says they were counting on the foreign groups that went into Egypt disguised as civil society but were as honest about the work they do as the Bin Laden disciples who would get into America and tell the people they came to help them and their children achieve higher goals in life. The Egyptians – the people and their government – saw what the goals of the fake foreign societies looked like, and rejected them at once.

They saw what the goals intended to accomplish in Egypt through the thugs that the foreigners had trained and financed to set ablaze dozens of churches in the country, hoping to spark a religious war. And they saw them through the work of groups that pretended to help kids in developing countries, but smuggled them out of the country. They sold these kids to crime syndicates that ran global prostitution rings, and to killers that trafficked in human organs.

There is one more question to ask: Who might have been the instigator behind that editorial? Here is a clue as to who it might have been: “The State Department seems to bet that Sisi will prove to be like Chile's Augusto Pinochet who managed to modernize his economy while engaging in 'repression.'”

To ignore the world of today and cite a historic example that no one will bother to check, is to pull a fast one on the readers. Only the Jews have developed this habit. They use the argument often because they don't want the readers to know that successful countries in Asia – and now increasingly in Eastern Europe – have learned that the chaotic times in which we live require that discipline be imposed from the top. This happens from time to time, and remains in force as long as necessary but no more. Sisi is on the right track.

At last an Egyptian Minister discussing Egypt

At long last, the Wall Street Journal saw fit to publish an article written by an Egyptian discussing Egypt's economy. She is Sahar Nasr who is the country's minister of international cooperation.

She wrote: “Egypt Is Charting a New Economic Course,” a piece that also came under the subtitle: “Unlocking the country's potential through private-sector-led growth free of the heavy hand of the state.” It was published on November 24, 2016 in the Journal.

With a few exceptions, most of the article should be clear even to those who are not familiar with that country's economy. Since the intent of the minister's article is to invite potential investors to participate in the opportunities opening to all, it is important to shed light on the areas that may need clarification.

One area that may confuse some people is this quote: “Access to affordable housing and expanding the natural-gas-pipeline network are also features of the package.” It must be said there are two kinds of natural gas pipelines. There is the network which connects the gas fields to the processing plants, the reservoirs and the main distribution centers. And there is the network which connects the distribution centers to private homes and other end-users. The first is the concern of the oil companies. Nasr is talking about the second, which is the concern of governments at all levels.

Why did she lump that network of pipelines with affordable housing? The answer is that to alleviate poverty you must be efficient. There are many ways to do that, one being to make the right choices. So let's take an example. You are in your kitchen where you have two stoves. One uses electricity, the other natural gas. You get two identical pots, fill them with equal amounts of water and let them boil to make pasta. Half an hour later your two pastas are ready. How much fuel did each system consume?

The electric stove uses an element that consumes 2,000 watts of electricity per hour. In the half-hour that it took to make the pasta, it used 1,000 watts or one kilowatt-hour. Whatever the fuel that's used by the electric company to generate electricity, you can think of it in terms of natural gas equivalent. So, how much of that did the electric stove consume?

To supply your house with one kilowatt-hour of electricity, the power plant would have used approximately 10 cubic feet of natural gas. Is that high? Yes it is. It is high because it is inefficient. That's because the generating unit is a complex piece of machinery. It uses the fuel to boil water. The resulting steam runs a turbine that drives a generator. This converts the mechanical power into the electricity that goes into one or several cascading transformers before reaching your house. And each step of the way, the converted power loses a percentage of what it started with.

If, on the other hand, the natural gas had come directly to your house, and you used it in your gas stove, you would have consumed only 3 cubic feet instead of the 10 that the electric company consumed. The rule of thumb is that when you avoid converting power from one form to another, you practice the best kind of efficiency there is. This is why the effort in Egypt is to supply every new subdivision and every existing one with natural gas. The last I read is that one third of the homes in that country are already connected to the natural gas network. The government wants to make it 100 percent.

It costs money to do that, which is why in Egypt; they created public-private partnerships to finance the project. This is a long term undertaking in which every subdivision that's connected to the natural gas pipeline ends up rewarding those who invested in it handsomely. This happens each time without fail because the endgame is efficiency, and nothing rewards more than a project that is truly efficient.

Before the first revolution five years ago, the poverty rate in Egypt hardly surpassed the first quintile, defined as the bottom 20 percent of the income levels. Two revolutions bumped that rate to 27.8 percent, a historic high. To reduce that level, it is not enough to grow the economy horizontally. They already do that in Egypt; they must now grow the economy vertically as well. This means they must become efficient everywhere they can.

This is why Nasr says: “Egypt needs substantial investments in human development to boost productivity and create decent jobs.” There too, the people who will invest in these areas will be handsomely rewarded.

Misusing the Language to deceive Readers

Egypt's population is almost identical to that of Germany. Tunisia's population is almost identical to that of Portugal. So what? So nothing except that you can amuse yourself connecting dots all you want and you'll come up with nothing that's useful.

Of course, it would be foolish for someone to try comparing Tunisia and Portugal; or try comparing Egypt and Germany. It would also be foolish to compare Germany and Portugal; or compare Egypt and Tunisia. Not one of these comparisons would make sense because the history, the kind of economy and the circumstances of each country are different from one another.

But because Tunisia had a revolution and then Egypt followed suit – both being fellow Arabs located on the same North African Continent – pundits of the feather have been comparing the two countries as if they were identical twins. The latest pundit to do so is Ishac Diwan who wrote: “Egypt and Tunisia's Divergent Paths,” an article that was published on November 22, 2016 on the website of Project Syndicate.

Actually, that article is similar to other works that came before it except that it was updated to take into account the new developments which took place in the recent past. The gist of the author's argument is that Tunisia's economy has been doing badly so far, which is understandable, he says. But that economy is expected to do well in the future, he says, because Tunisia has adopted the correct political posture, he goes on to say. As to Egypt's economy, it has been doing badly, and promises to do even worse in the future because Egypt has adopted the incorrect political posture, he asserts.

Ishac Diwan uses the word “both” six times to make the comparison. (1) Both countries suffer from low growth, large deficits, high unemployment, and rising public debt. (2) Both turned to the IMF for a loan. (3) Both showed lack of interest in economic reform. (4) Both increased public spending. (5) Instability in both countries impeded growth. (6) Falling tourism in both countries caused the current-account deficit to widen.

Baffled by these similarities, you wonder if Diwan points to any sign at all that promises Tunisia's economy will do well in the future whereas Egypt's economy will do badly. But all you find is more comparisons. Here is one: Egypt reduced its subsidies but they still remain above 10%, whereas Tunisia raised the wages of civil-servants from 10% of GDP to 15%. Oh! Oh! Oh, wait a minute.

Stop here and look at that! It says Egypt reduced the subsidies and Tunisia raised the wages. This says … no, this screams … that Egypt should do well in the future whereas Tunisia should do badly. But how come Diwan reaches the opposite conclusion? Aha, my friend aha! Don't you know? The magic is in the use of the language.

Look and learn, my friend, look what the author did and learn from it: “In Egypt, subsidies were still above 10% of GDP, suggesting a return to the old authoritarian bargain whereby citizens abstain from political participation in exchange for government economic support”.

Did you catch the intellectual dishonesty in that passage? The use of the word “still” means that the subsidies in Egypt were higher than 10%, and were brought down to that level. That is, Egypt broke with its past and changed direction. But what does Diwan say? He says the move signals a return to the old authoritarian bargain. What? Logic says that when you break with the past you do not return to the old … and yet, this is what the author wants us to believe. We cannot escape the moral of the story: it is that Ishac Diwan has exposed himself as a shameless pathological liar with a hidden agenda of his own that remains obscure.

Now that you know the writer is relying on language to tell falsehoods that are difficult to spot, you look for key words that point to more lies, and dismiss them. Here is one: “Egypt has disastrously mismanaged its exchange rate.” And another one: “The Egyptian and Tunisian people are dissatisfied. Over time, this frustration will help Tunisia's economy, while hurting Egypt's.” To the trashcan they both go.

One question remains to be answered: Where is the proof that Ishac Diwan is dangerously off the mark?

Answer: It is in the fact that he and his likes were forced to change the song they used to sing. They now sing the economic song instead of the one they discarded. They used to say that “repression” in Egypt is causing young Egyptians to run away and join movements like al-Qaeda and ISIS. By the same token, it also meant that the non-repressive regime of Tunisia did not produce jihadis.

But the truth came out. It says that on a per capita basis, Egypt produces almost no jihadis, whereas Tunisia produces the largest number of jihadis.

They changed their song but they continue to deceive their audiences. Shame on them.

Culture Shock in the Digital Age

Congressman Mike Pompeo was chosen to head the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Should we rejoice or be sad? Well, it is impossible to tell at this point how the man will handle the most pressing issue of our time. To fully appreciate what that is, we need to look back at some historic moments.

Looking at the discovery of the new world by the Europeans, and what happened to the indigenous cultures as a result, a theory developed to the effect that culture shock happens when a primitive culture gets exposed to one that's more advanced. One theory has it that the primitive culture finds it too difficult to take-in and digest what the advanced culture has to offer, thus begins to weaken and may even perish. 

This kind of development might have been true centuries ago but not anymore. We live in an age where the hunger for variety is the order of the day. It's and age in which we take-in everything that's thrown at us and ask for more. This happens because we keep very little of what we consume, and quickly discard as much as we can to make room for something new. We then get ready to plunge into a whole new cycle of exotic experiences.

And so we wonder if there is a general description of the way that we interact with a new culture. Actually, to be honest with ourselves, we must ponder the possibility that we may never have a full answer to this line of queries, but we can try. Having lived in small towns and big cities, immersed in several cultures among a number of ethnic groups, I would say that the one thing most cultures have in common is that people become curious when they discover a new trait in someone they just met.

They size up that trait, internalize it and fuse it into their culture, thus make it their own. And this is where the culture shock develops. No, it's not the recipient of the trait that gets shocked – the way it used to happen in the old days – it is the donor that gets shocked. It happens to him upon learning that the recipient is becoming somewhat like him. This is like looking in the mirror and seeing yourself not the way you think you are, but the way that a stranger sees you.

What are the ramifications of all that? This is a loaded question because the ramifications are numerous, and depend on where they apply. The area of my interest – where I spent much time studying various cultures – is the principle of governance, and all that revolves around it. For this reason, I begin with the notion that talk about Greece being the birthplace of both Western Civilization and democracy is romantic poppycock. If this were true, there would not have been a period of Dark Ages in Europe. This is the period that ended with the advent of the Arab science and culture; an event that triggered the European Renaissance.

In my view, it was the Industrial Revolution which followed the Renaissance that gave Europe its distinct character … it allowed the mass production of lethal weapons of war. These were used to conquer other lands and maintain an exploitative kind of colonialism in Africa, Asia and the New World. This development gave the Europeans the confidence that no one will invade them. But the elite of the Continent neglected to improve the social conditions of the people that toiled long and hard in mines and factories. And it was this misery that triggered the various European social revolutions; the movement that made democracy inevitable.

Democracy began in Europe but did not work out too well for everyone. In the meantime the advancement in science and technology had made possible the “discovery” of a new world; a place where everyone that was not happy with Europe went to start a new life. That was America, a Republic that became a model democracy. The situation lasted for about two centuries till the Jews came into the country harboring different ideas.

They exploited the system of democracy to advance their hidden agenda. Taking advantage of the fact that the American melting pot had not fully melted, they created the noise that confused everyone and made them suspicious of each other. This cleared the way for the Jews to rise to the top of the food chain. In the meantime, they created Israel; a homeland away from their American homeland. They made it their priority to harness the potentials of America, and make them work for the benefit of Israel.

The Jews made enormous strides in that vein, but the signs are there it may all come to an end. Because they cannot continue to serve Israel by exchanging something they have for something they don't have, they realized they need to devise a new way to maintain their exploitation of America. And they came up with one.

Notorious for the way they get what they want by blackmailing others, they found a hi-tech method to do just that. Despite the fact they are no better than average when it comes to digital technology, they are telling the world – America included – that Israel is one of the most advanced countries in cyber security.

What they want is for the heads of private and government institutions in America to hire Israeli firms in the business of securing equipment against hacking. What the Israelis will do instead is install malware that will let the Israelis see what their clients are doing. And this is how they will be in a position to blackmail anyone and everyone in America, forcing them to work for the glory of Israel.

If Pompeo can devise a full-proof way to stop this potential horror before it hits America, he will have done his country a lot of good. Otherwise, he will have failed to protect his country, not understanding how dangerous these people are. If this happens, it will be the most devastating culture shock that America has ever experienced.

There is no Delusion like self-Delusion

What is the difference between the real world and the fiction world of say, the movies or the theater? The difference is that the real world is governed by the laws of nature, foremost among these being the law of causality. That is, something happens because something else made it happen. For an event to take place, first comes the cause and then the effect. As to the world of fiction, it is governed by the imagination of its author.

What then is the difference between the world of fiction and the world of delusion? In fiction, the author tells the audience how to classify what he created. He says he did it to entertain them, to use the tools of the medium to clarify a difficult to understand concept, or to do both. By contrast, in the world of delusion, the author tries to make the audience believe that the fiction is reality even where it violates the laws of nature.

Finally, self-delusion refers to the mind that has grown so deranged; it continuously creates a world of fiction in which the laws of nature are violated at every turn. Furthermore, the author ends up believing in his own fantasy and tries to convince his audience that this world is the real world whereas what they perceive as reality is a fiction by which to be entertained and nothing more.

When it comes to writing editorials that concern the Middle East, what you'll find in the Wall Street Journal is a mixture of delusion and self-delusion. The editors have created a fantasy world, some of which they believe, and some of which they may not believe but want the audience to believe. One such episode came under the title: “The Syrian Charnel House,” an editorial that also came under the subtitle: “This is what the world looks like under the Putin-Iran axis.” It was published on November 22, 2016 in the Journal.

One plank in the set of beliefs upon which the Journal's fantasy is constructed (as told in this editorial and many past ones) is that Israel has the right to kill 2,100 unarmed Palestinians living in their homes in Gaza, the land on which they have lived since the beginning of time. It is okay for Israel to kill this many Palestinians in 30 days – an average of 70 a day – say the editors of the Journal because Israel is full of good guys whereas Gaza is full of bad guys.

By contrast, what is not okay, the editors go on to say, is for the government of Syria to defend its territory against a ragtag army of terrorist fighters who came to join local rebels supported by the United States precisely because they are dissidents who rose against their own government. This makes them the good guys because they are opposed to a regime that must be toppled, something that Israel wants to see happen in furtherance of its agenda ... which automatically becomes America's agenda as well.

For this to cohere with everything else pertaining to the Middle East, America condemns the Russians and the Chinese who use the veto at the Security Council perhaps once a decade, but uses the veto herself to defend Israel as often as a diabetic visits the loo on the day he participates in a drinking contest.

If that does not shock you, dear reader, the editors of the Journal want you to believe their hearts bleed because “the United Nations says a million Syrians are under siege across that country.” But where were they when 1.6 million Gazans were under siege and under bombardment in a place that is 520 times smaller than Syria? Did their hearts bleed then? Or did they celebrate the effectiveness of America's weapon systems when they are used against defenseless mothers nursing their babies at home?

The editors go on to lament: “The axis of Assad more or less has a free hand given that the rest of the world lacks the will to help or protect the rebels.” But what do they say about the New-York/Tel-Aviv axis that also has a free hand to murder the innocent by the thousands?

It does so, not because someone lacks the will to protect armed rebels and terrorists, but because the self-appointed policeman is arming, financing and protecting the 4,000-year old criminals who never ceased to spread bloodshed everywhere they went since the day they murdered the babies of Egypt, looted the country and ran to set up a place out of which they continued to practice their satanic activities.

The editors of the Journal end their piece like this: “The point to understand is that Syria is what the world looks like when the U.S. abandons world leadership.” What they forgot to say is that Gaza is what the world looks like when the U.S implements the Jewish agenda.

An Article the NY Times will never publish

Did you see the article on the website of Project Syndicate? It came under the title: “Donald Trump's Choices in the Middle East,” and was published on November 21, 2016. It was written by Shlomo Ben-Ami of the Toledo International Center for Peace.

Let me tell you in condensed form how the article ends: “Trump should recognize that America's allies have an incentive to make peace with Israel and collaborate with it on regional security. Such an arrangement could be legitimate only with the creation of a Palestinian state. This would also support US reconciliation with the Arab peoples, thereby serve America's national security interests. Trump should not hesitate to seize the initiative”.

Now you know why the title of my article says the New York Times will never publish an article like that of Ben-Ami. You see, my friend, the New York Times is a phony “liberal, progressive” rag. It might have been a genuine one in the past, but it has been taken over by the war mongering neocons who don't want the world to know they are now in charge. This is why the editors pretend to stand for peace in the world, which is a liberal progressive ideal. But in reality, they are giving cover to those who beat the drums of war day after day. To put it simply, the editors of the New York Times follow a hypocritical editorial policy, and they write lying editorials.

Aside from Ben-Ami urging President-elect Donald Trump to recognize Palestine as a sovereign state, what else is there that might irk the editors of the New York Times so much that they would never consider publishing an article like that of Ben-Ami? The answer is plenty. Yes, there is plenty that would irk the neocons-in-liberal clothing who populate the editorial offices of the Times.

Here is a declaration that will most certainly blow a few minds at the New York rag: “America's 'moderate' jihadist allies are no more palatable than President Bashar al-Assad.” This stands in direct opposition to the neocon philosophy of toppling the existing systems in the Middle East, and replacing them with lackeys who will be open to turning their sovereign nations into client states.

The aim of the neocons has always been to bring about a Pax Americana that will effectuate regime change and put the nations of the region under the influence of Jewish America (or Jew.S.A. as it is now called.) And so, to see Ben-Ami articulate the notion that President Bashar al-Assad is no worse than America's moderate jihadists, is nothing short of sacrilegious to these people.

What is even more galling to the neocon editors of the New York Times is that Ben-Ami went further than his original declaration and made this assertion: “The only way to defeat a movement that thrives amid chaos is to build strong and competent states.” How else to interpret this, but to think that Ben-Ami wants to do more than preserve the Assad regime; he wants to strengthen it. Is 'profane' a stronger word than sacrilegious?

How about a characterization that goes beyond these two words? For example labeling 'revolting' what Ben-Ami says next? You don't believe he could have gone further than that? Well then, see for yourself: “If Trump opts for a purely military approach, he will find that every 'victory' merely creates space for more violence and terror.” Are you convinced now? To tell a neocon that to seek a military solution is bad for the world, is like telling a serial rapist sex is bad for his health.

Okay, mister; we're numb by now. Hit us; what else is Ben-Ami saying? He is saying this: “America's allies would be well advised to drop their opposition to the Iran deal, and instead encourage Trump to keep it in place.” Oh no! Oh yes, we're staying cool, we're not screaming, we're not hysterical. We're cool, we're cool.

Good you're cool because there is more where this came from. In fact there are two more things. To shorten the agony, I'll give them to you back to back. And I'll run like hell before your mind explodes and blows me away like a feather in a hurricane. Here they are:

(1) “Turkish President Erdogan wants to quell the Kurd's ambitions of self rule … it is clear that Kurdish independence is not in the cards”.

(2) “A settlement building spree [in the West Bank] might trigger a fierce third Palestinian intifada”.

Quick. I'm getting' outta here. Goodbye. So long. Farewell.

A new Category for ‘the socially Handicapped’

This discussion is about a situation in the Middle East that's so contorted, you may think of it as representing a load of Jewish ambiguities wrapped with immoral Jewish clarity. To help clarify the story as much as possible, I need to begin by telling the true story of a student I once had in my school.

It happened in Montreal, a large metropolis in the French Canadian Province of Quebec where the social safety net is one of the most generous in the world. What's heartening about it is that people in need are looked after very well. What's disheartening is that some people take advantage of it, thus live at the expense of others. I had a student of the latter kind in my school.

He was in his early thirties when he registered for a one year course in electronics. It looked to me from day one that he was well versed in the subject, so I asked him if he took a similar course previously and he said he did. I asked how far he got and he said he took all of it but skipped the final exam, and was not going to say more. As time passed, however, he opened up to the other students, to other teachers and to me.

His story is that he considers himself socially handicapped because he discovered he cannot get along with anyone at work … and so he decided never to work. To live the good life, he took advantage of the social programs extended by the Province. One of those was the student grant he received as long as he was in school. He was also getting welfare to live on even though he was “renting” space in his parents' home. He fathered a child with a girlfriend he broke with as soon as the baby was born, and got the mother's consent to let him have full custody. He thus got extra welfare and the regular child support from the government even though his own mother was raising the baby.

Because he was not supposed to have more than 2,000 dollars in the bank, he opened an account in his father's name but kept the checkbook in his pocket. As for investment, he had gold rings studded with diamonds in several fingers, and had a gold bracelet that would make a Jeweler's head spin. He bought jewelry when the prices were low, and sold when they were high. After that, what I never guessed would happen did happen. It is that when I set the date for the final exam, he dropped out of school. A few days later I received a note from another school asking me to forward his dossier because he had registered with them for the coming year.

And that's also the story of Israel as it plays the role of a socially handicapped entity living on Palestinian property and getting donations from everywhere. Exempted from the rules that apply to everyone else, it is openly violating the most important rule of all. Even though no government can deliberately engineer the ethnic or religious makeup of the jurisdiction under its control, Israel made that engineering the centerpiece of its legal system. Worse, it periodically feeds its mouthpieces around the globe with news about the government's fight to maintain a Jewish majority in occupied Palestine for the mouthpieces to spin and propagandize the news, and celebrate Israel's demographic successes.

Two articles published on two consecutive days show exactly how this horror story unfolds in full view of the world. The first came under the title: “Jewish, Arab fertility rates in Israel on par for first time,” and the subtitle: “Arab rate drops, Jewish rate rises, and women in both groups now give birth to an average of 3.13 children, highest in OECD.” It was written by the staff of Times of Israel, and published on November 15, 2016. The second article came under the title: “Israel's Population Bomb is Disappearing,” written by Elliott Abrams, and published on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations the next day, November 16, 2016.

The Times of Israel staff says that the Israeli Bureau of Statistics released figures about the fertility rates of Arab and Jewish women to mark International Child Day. The figures show that the rate of Arab women has been dropping whereas that of Jewish women has been rising. Where there used to be a wide gap between the two rates, there is none now.

The staff of the publication did not comment on those figures for obvious reasons. Instead, they left it to the self-appointed leaders of the Jews in America to draw the conclusions that suit them, which is what Elliott Abrams did. The trouble is that what suits him is not what suits human beings anywhere in the world.

Instead of seeing the phenomenon as being the result of policies put down by Israel and by wealthy American Jews who pay large Jewish families to go settle in Israel – at a time when the Israeli army is blowing up Palestinian homes and stealing their food and water – Abrams did something else.

He began his article by mocking those who “know that Arab population growth rate in Israel exceed Jewish ones.” He quoted a few of the figures cited by the Times of Israel, and ended the article with this: “What are the political implications? The debate must begin with facts about population growth.” That's his way to take a victory lap and celebrate the Israeli and Jewish policy of slow motion cultural genocide.

Well, my friend, not even the socially handicapped should be permitted to do that. But then again, the rot begins with the policeman of the world that's encouraging and protecting this ongoing crime against humanity. When will America wake up to this reality, and put an end to it?

The self-Delusion that foretells future Madness

What happens when the self-appointed leaders of the Jews wake up one morning and realize that they messed up so badly, the people they lead are leaving the fold in droves, and many of these are countering what they, as leaders, have spent a lifetime putting together?

The answer to that question exists already. It shows that the Jewish leaders created a fantasy by painting a world that's the exact opposite of current realities. To do that, they must have reasoned that the world and their own rank-and-file were turned off because they abused the antisemitic accusation, and did other similar things. The remedy, they must have concluded, would be to reverse course. And the way to do that would be to argue the false assertion that: “Everybody Loves Israel”.

In fact, this is what Arthur Herman of the Hudson Institute did in an essay he wrote and published under that title on November 7, 2016 in MOSAIC. He also gave the essay this subtitle: “Formerly neutral or hostile countries from across the world, including Saudi Arabia and China, are now eagerly courting the Jewish state...” To give himself a reason to expand on that theme, he asked the question: “What's going on?” and got busy answering it.

It is clear from reading his 6,270-word response that he had a strategy in mind. Because there is soon going to be a new government in the United States, and because there is bound to be change on the Palestinian question at the United Nations, Herman wanted the Jewish rank-and-file in America to believe that no matter what happens as a result of the anticipated change, things will get better for Israel and will continue to get better. And so, the Jewish rank-and-file who are leaving the fold should reconsider because they might be needed to help with the Palestinian question no matter in which direction the events will unfold.

Yes, Herman admits, Israel continues to have problems with the Palestinian Authority, Iran, the United Nations and the movement to boycott Israel in Europe and on American college campuses, but he assures the estranged rank-and-file that all those negatives are offset because “Israel is fast becoming the Middle East's golden child.” Israel is also doing very well with Russia and such East Asian countries as China, Japan and India, he goes on to say. As to Europe, Israel is doing well with Latvia, Estonian and Lithuania. And last but not least, it is doing well with most of what constitutes America.

Will this be enough to reassure the foot soldiers who stayed with their self-appointed leaders through thick and thin? They participated in letter writing campaigns when asked, lobbied everyone they encountered on behalf of Israel, badmouthed every enemy that the leaders chose to hate for the day, and contributed money without question to every cause that the leaders declared worthy. Will these people rally back around their leaders?

Maybe that will be enough or maybe it will not. And so, to make sure that it will be at least moderately effective, Herman decided to find someone who would second his premise. Doing so should soften his essay – which probably sounds like a lecture. A second voice will give it the feel of an internal Jewish dialogue; one that beckons every Jew in the land to join the conversation.

And sure enough, Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy responded to the invitation a week later on November 14, 2016. He did so in a 2,100-word essay that came under a title sounding almost the same as that of Arthur Herman: “Everyone Loves Israel...” But he added the caveat: “...Until They Don't,” and published the work on the website of the Washington Institute.

Worried he might predict something today that will prove wrong tomorrow, Satloff starts with this warning: “Yes, Israel is popular now but most of its friendships are based on common interest that can change overnight.” Feeling covered if something goes wrong, he is now free to go past Herman's brush, and paint a rosier picture of today's Israel. And so, he speaks of “Israel's exploding relations ... Suitors around the world jockeying for the attention of Israeli leaders, diplomats, scholars, investors, consultants, and hi-tech entrepreneurs”.

Can all that change and turn for the worse? Yes, says Robert Satloff. But the reason will not come from Israel; it will come from somewhere else. Perhaps from increasingly authoritarian Egypt or Turkey's megalomaniac leader Erdogan or the dysfunctional Palestinian Authority. After all, Israel is perfect and nothing goes wrong with it till something goes wrong with someone else.

And this is why you should expect that whether or not there will be drastic change on the Palestinian question at the United Nations, the self-delusion exhibited by the Jewish leaders foretells a period of future madness that will complicate the region even more than it already is.

The problem will not come from Egypt or Turkey or Palestine; it exists inside the hearts and minds of the Jewish leaders. It is called the Jewish insatiable hunger to live off someone else, and will surface as it always does at the least opportune time.

Controlling the Policeman of the World

Imagine the leaders of Russia, China, Iran or North Korea making it the policy of their country to support every movement of dissent that forms in America. Imagine such leaders jumping in front of the cameras to encourage every protest that takes place in the streets of America against the government or the police or any other institution. Would you remain indifferent to this sort of behavior?

Well, you may at first find it hard to believe, but the reality is that such behavior is taking place today, and has been for some time. No, the culprits are not in Russia, China, Iran or North Korean; they are in Israel and in America. They do not personally jump in front of the cameras because they have sleeper cells that never sleep. They dominate the 24 hours news cycle as well as the weekly, monthly and quarterly cycles.

They are the Jews who control the American media. They are editors and pundits who spend their time and devote their resources to pitting the people against their government. They also pit the legislators against each other and against the Executive Branch of the government. Foremost among the outlets that engage in this sort of activities are Fox News and the Weekly Standard.

Hiding behind the two principles of press freedom and the right of the people to know, Fox News has been inviting instigators of the Israeli government to go on the air in America and warn the President of the United States to toe their line, or the Jewish voters will throw him out of office. As to the personnel of the Weekly Standard, they spend time and resources identifying those they call pro-Israel and those they call anti-Israel from among the legislators, the groups of citizens and the individuals who mind their business and go about living their daily lives peacefully in America.

Disguised as journalists, the personnel of the Weekly Standard write harassment articles about the legislators, the groups of people and the individuals they do not like. They do so under headlines that suggest those people are engaged in illegal or unethical activities. Below that, the body of the articles would be filled with innuendos, with speculations based on the innuendos, and conclusions based on the speculations.

Two articles written by Jenna Lifhits show how this is done. The first came under the title: “Dem Reps Met With Alleged Member of Palestinian Terrorist Group,” published on November 17, 2016 on the website of the Weekly Standard. The second came under the title: “Iran will Take Advantage of Obama Administration's Final Weeks, Top Lawmaker Warns,” published on November 18, 2016, also on the website of the Weekly Standard.

To better understand what fuels the harassment and incitement machine which operates such outlets as Fox News and the Weekly Standard, we must recall that after decades of laborious work, the Jewish leaders had managed to monopolize the public square in which ideas used to be exchanged freely. They pushed everyone out and maintained the semblance of free exchange by presenting two sides for each story. There was the Jewish side as told by the Jews. And there was the Arab side as told by the Jews. The principle of the Arab side being told by Arabs was turned into a taboo.

But then, it happened that the rank-and-file among America's Jews began to realize that their leaders were exploiting them as much as they exploited everyone else. They began to listen to the Arabs, and make room for them to tell their side of the story themselves. One way to do this was to invite America's lawmakers to visit the Arabs where they live, and see what's happening. The Arabs began to do that, and the self-appointed leaders of the Jews panicked. It is this state of panic that you take away when reading the November 17 article.

As to the November 18 article, the fear motivating the Jewish leaders is that after the election that put the White House and the two chambers of Congress in the hands of one Party, the Jews will have diminished opportunities to pit one Party against the other.

For this reason, they invented the concept of a “Top Lawmaker” worrying about the Obama Administration continuing to do the wrong thing even as it transfers the reins of power to the incoming Administration. This is to tell the incoming group never to forget how bad the losers of the election had been, therefore never to be magnanimous toward them.

This is to incite them to maintain the animosity so that the Jews may continue to exploit them for the benefit of Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel.

Feeble Mind writing unlikely Scenario

You couldn't ask for a better demonstration as to how the self-appointed leaders of the Jews shut everyone up so that they alone may walk onto the beach and build sand castles. The trouble is that each time they did that, the storm came along and brought with it the high waves that hit the shore and swallowed the castles.

We owe our thanks to Lee Smith for taking the trouble to write a scenario that shows how the fantasy begins; how it leads to the writing of unlikely scenarios, and how the effort serves to ruin the good work that America did over the decades to earn the excellent reputation it used to enjoy before the Jews ruined it all.

Smith wrote: “Doomed Deal,” an article that was published on November 18, 2016 in the Weekly Standard. He wrote the piece to show how the president-elect can do what the Jews always do when they try to renege on a contract they cease to like. He tells how Donald Trump can “tear up” the Iran Nuclear Deal without upsetting the other signatories, thus keep them on America's side and isolate Iran.

To explain all that, Lee Smith wrote a scenario in which he describes a role for each of the characters, making them move and respond in a way that leads to the desired ending. The problem is that the scenario is supposed to represent real people and not characters on paper the way he imagined them. The reality is that the Iranians, the other signatories to the deal, and the people at the United Nations will not behave the way he fantasized.

Here is how, he says, things will go: America will notify the Security Council that Iran has violated the Agreement. At this point the Council has 30 days to address the issue. If the concerns are not satisfied, a resolution comes before the Council to continue suspending nuclear sanctions on Iran. The United States would use its veto power to strike down the measure, at which point all multilateral sanctions would be reimposed. At that stage, Iran almost certainly walks out of the deal.

Is that how it will all happen? Not so, says John Bolton who was America's ambassador to the United Nations and knows his way around that place. In fact he wrote at least two articles in which he explained in detail why the Lee Smith approach will not work. Bear in mind that Bolton assumed Iran will cheat on the deal and will try to hide its violation whereas Smith is talking about a trivial violation that was reported to the IAEA by the Iranians themselves.

One of Bolton's articles came under the title: “What 'snapback' mechanism in the Iran deal?” published on June 13, 2015 in the Pittsburgh Tribune. In it, Bolton says the following:

“Russia and China could easily gridlock the committee. Moscow and Beijing could contest the evidence of a 'violation'; argue that any violation was not material to the underlying agreement; or accept Iranian explanations that violations were 'accidental,' or already 'corrected.'”

The other article came under the title: “The Iran Deal's Dangerous Precedent,” published on August 3, 2016 in the New York Times. In it, Bolton says the following:

“To prevent Russia or China from casting vetoes that block snapback poses hidden dangers for America … if Washington alleged a breach, Moscow and Beijing would have the burden of keeping the sanctions lifted, rather than Washington having the burden of reinsituting them … By concocting a procedure that elides the Russian or Chinese vetoes, Mr. Obama has [diminished] the veto power. Through 70 years, Washington's only immutable protection has been its Security Council veto. The end-run around the veto poses long-term risks that outweigh the gain to be had”.

What this says is that Lee Smith was aware of Bolton's prior presentations. But in the typical “balanced” way that Jewish journalism is practiced, Smith chose from the Bolton passages what endorses his thesis, and left out what refutes it.

He thus tried to con Donald Trump to make him implement Netanyahu's agenda, not realizing that a neocon is standing behind him ready to knife him in the back again and again and again.

America paralyzed by political Correctness

Political correctness is more than having to say someone is weight challenged instead of calling him or her obese. In fact, the practice of political correctness is more wide ranging and more subtle than that.

For example, there happens to be one rail accident in Egypt for every one hundred or so in North America. And yet, such accidents are reported in America and the rest of the world as straight news whereas those in Egypt are twinned with the editorial note: 'Egypt's rail system suffers from chronic lack of maintenance.' That, my friend, is the effect of political correctness.

There are examples of another sort. A notable one was the day when so-called friendly fire killed a number of people on a desert safari in Egypt. The accident earned the country's military the “clumsy” epithet in such publication as the New York Times. Even though such event happened only once in the long history of the Egyptian military – as opposed to the American and Israeli armed forces where it ranks as routine – the wretched editors of the Times could not resist throwing an undeserved insult at Egypt's military. To single out that country for vilification is the result of hateful political correctness.

The list of examples is endless, and no one that has knowledge in such matters will have difficulty seeing that this sort of political correctness came to America from a foreign source. It is that the American culture has been infected by the Judeo-Yiddish haggling which selects a number of targets to slander each day. And while all this appears benign on the surface, the same cannot be said when looking seriously at the ways that political correctness is used to steer the decision makers into directions that often hurt the interests of America.

One of the pillars to sustain political correctness pertaining to Jewish and Israeli interests is the list of single-word debate-stoppers that the Jews have developed over the past half century. The two most used words in this regard are “democracy and “terror.” The first is used in phrases like “Israel is the only democracy…” The second is used in phrases like “a sponsor of terror...” These are locutions used by Jews to tell others: shut up, and consider it that you lost the argument. And this too, my friend, is an offshoot of political correctness.

Those tools in hand, the Jewish leaders were able to put out a double narrative that no one was left standing to oppose. One narrative constantly painted Israel as heaven on earth endowed with virtues surpassing those of angels. The other narrative painted Israel's enemies of the day as hell on earth afflicted with sins that surpass those of demons. This is how the Jews managed to shape opinion makers such as the New York Times. It is how they also managed to steer policy deciders such as members of the Congress into directions that shredded into confetti America's standing in the world.

How all this works in real life can be seen in the editorial that came under the title: “Israel's Alarming Settlement Bill,” published on November 17, 2016 in the New York Times. This work paints the image of a hypocritical mass afflicted with political correctness and the intellectual dishonesty that goes with it.

Look what it is that the Jews call democracy: “Israeli lawmakers gave approval to a bill that would retroactively legalize settlements built on Palestinian land. The bill is intended to prevent the court-ordered demolition of an illegal outpost.”

Had something like that happened elsewhere in the world, the Times editors would have cried out: this is fascism disguised as democracy. Had it happened in Egypt, they would have blown their entrails out of the belly yelling: stop sending them those 38 billion dollars … err … or is it 1.3 billion? Yeah baby, it's 1.3 billion to Egypt and 38 billion to Israel ... Yeah man, punish Egypt but kiss and make up with Israel, and then send them more dollars. And that, my friend, is political correctness of the whorish kind.

But never mind all that because it will prove to be neither here nor there in the long run. Also, never mind the rest of the editorial except for its ending. So then, what are the nincompoops of the Times saying in the end? Here is what they say: “He [Donald Trump] should signal to the Israelis that he will need time and consultation to develop a coherent policy on the region”.

Translation: Continue doing what you're doing, Israel. We'll be here to protect you and make America pay the price while you gobble up what's left of Palestine.