Desperate Think Tanks thinking Demagoguery

Imagine 30 to 40 million American men and women, classified as blue collar workers, and 120 million other ones classified as service industry workers, all toiling and producing the wealth of the nation.

These people deserve to be entertained once in a while, which is why there are television shows, big screen shows, nightclubs, the circus and what have you. Some of these people, especially the younger ones among them, love scary shows all the time but especially at Halloween time. They pay good money to be scared by a form of entertainment that's seen as legitimate because it is harmless. It is so because the audience knows that the show will end in a few minutes, and that life will get back to normal.

However, this cultural activity must not be confused with something called demagoguery; a word that's defined as the use of the language to sow fear in the hearts of the audience. The intention here is not to entertain but to control the emotions of the people so as to control their activities at the end of the day. Moreover, this “show” is not designed to end in a few minutes; it is designed to go on indefinitely.

But who would want to do that? If you really want to know, I can give you two names, and you take it from there. They are Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn who co-authored “The Final Obama Scandal,” a lengthy article that also came under the subtitle: “Closing the book on a deceptive narrative about the al Qaeda threat.” It was published on January 30, 2017 in the Weekly Standard.

Hayes is the new editor-in-chief at the Weekly Standard, and Thomas Joscelyn is a senior fellow at the thing which calls itself Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The latter is an outfit that pretends to be a think tank even though it has less of the gray matter that's necessary to think, than you could fit into the skull of a bird.

Hayes and Joscelyn are whining because they say that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a total of 571 documents of the million that were collected from Bin Laden's hideout. The Director said that no more will be released as he was closing the book on the Bin Laden matter.

When you read the 5,660-word article, you can tell that the two authors spent a great deal of time reading the Bin Laden documents and “analyzing” them. But these are only 571 documents of the 1,000,000 that Hayes and Joscelyn want to read – a ratio of 1 in 1,750. Now imagine how much time they will be spending going over the rest of the documents. More importantly: how much money they will be paid for the privilege? And that's not all because our authors are but two of the thousands who will get paid exorbitant sums – money that's marked as charitable donations, and doled out tax free.

So you ask: how can anyone justify any of this? The answer is that all these people – Hayes and Joscelyn included – drum into the heads of their audiences the thought that society is in existential danger. They claim they can protect society but to do this, they must know what's in the Bin Laden documents.

In short, the two authors want to see the release of all the Bin Laden documents. They also want society to pay them millions of tax free dollars while they spend several years reading and analyzing those documents. And while doing this, they will be scaring society – not to entertain it, but to control it.

Do they believe they have an argument that is strong enough to persuade the new administration to release all of Bin Laden's documents – including those pertaining to his wives and children? Apparently, Hayes and Joscelyn fear they may not, which is why they decided to play the ace card.

Here is how they did that: “Why do the documents still matter? Over the course of eight years, President Obama and his advisers repeatedly downplayed the Jihadist threat.” They continue to make their case like this: “There is no better resource for understanding al Qaeda than the intelligence recovered in its founder's compound”.

But the problem with Hayes and Joscelyn is that they didn't bother explaining why they believe they can do a better job understanding what's in those documents than the professionals who work in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the people that did all the analysis that can be done.

Until they do that, 160 million American working men and women deserve that money more than they ever will.

From Melvin Weinberg to Lee Smith

Can the Jewish establishment wave a magic wand and make America destroy what little credibility it has left?

The sad story of the rising Jewish influence in America made the posing of that question inevitable. This is the new reality because it is becoming increasingly clear that the Jewish influence caused two things to happen simultaneously. It caused America's points of strength to diminish unexpectedly, and caused foreign powers capable of challenging America to grow before their time. What happened was that in their quest to implement their agenda, the Jews employed a two-pronged strategy that proved lethal to America.

On one level, the Jews convinced America's officials to publicly say the things that alarmed the people who were listening overseas. Hearing America say it will never allow someone to get strong enough to challenge it, forced rising powers such as China, Russia and Iran to accelerate their economic and military developments. On another level, the Jews convinced America to do the things that sapped it of its strength. This happened because in going around the world to change the regimes that the Jews did not like, America exhausted its military and depleted its treasury while achieving nothing more than allow worse regimes to replace those it destroyed.

What this history reveals is that the magic wand in the hand of the Jews had been their ability to convince America's officials to say the wrong things at the wrong time for the wrong reasons – time after time after time. This done, they were able to convince those same officials or different ones to go ahead and do the wrong thing just because America committed itself to doing it. But how did the Jews develop the ability to convince American officials to damage their country time after time?

The answer is that the Jews have a formula they use every time that the cycle brings them to square one. This happens when they find themselves powerless and in need to “reload” so to speak … which happens to be the point where they find themselves at this time. And so, they responded by producing an example we can look at and draw conclusions. It is an article that came under the title: “Gabbard's Assad Trip–Courtesy of an Anti-Semitic Middle East Organization,” written by Lee Smith and published on Jan. 26, 2017 in the Weekly Standard.

You can see the answer to the earlier question right there in the title of the article. It says that the method which the Jews have been using to develop an ability to convince American officials of just about anything had been to accuse the people who stand in their way of anti-Semitism.

Look how Smith begins to prosecute the case: “House Representative Tulsi Gabbard admitted that she met president Bashar al-Assad on her fact-finding trip to Damascus.” The writer's use of the word “admit” conveys the notion that this American legislator did something wrong. He implies that she knows it, and may be ready to apologize for meeting Assad. He didn't say so loudly, but you can almost hear him complain: She met Assad without obtaining prior permission from the Jews, or getting instructions from them on how to handle Assad.

Instead of explaining that no one is required to obtain permission from anywhere when they go to meet with Netanyahu – who happens to be the occupier of Palestine and butcher of Gaza – Lee Smith tries to justify his attack on Gabbard by making it sound that (1) her visit to Syria was a “cloak and dagger” operation; (2) Assad is so bad; to meet with him is to commit an evil act, and (3) the organization that Gabbard associated with for going to Syria is a bad one. Here are the examples:

1. Smith says that Gabbard made a hard to believe claim about her original intention not to meet Assad, but then met him. And you're supposed to think there is a wicked mystery here.

2. He says that Assad teamed up with many foreign allies and killed 400,000 of his own people. And you're supposed to think this is worse than anything Netanyahu did.

3. He says the organization that paid for Gabbard's trip to Syria also paid for the one that Dennis Kucinich took to Syria and made a contribution to his campaign. It is a bad organization, says Smith, because it is anti-Semitic and supports Israel's enemy, Hezbollah.

Never before the decade of the Seventies did one ethnic group harass another group in America. And then it happened that a Jew named Melvin Weinberg started the trend by concocting the Abscam scandal, meant to entrap the Arabs and their friends, but managing instead to establish their innocence while unmasking the corruption that's common among the Jews and America’s elected officials.

Rather than stop here and learn to be civilized, the Jews who find themselves in control of the media, have morphed their method of harassment to take advantage of the freedom of the press which allows them to be as nasty as ever, yet be protected by the first amendment. And so they continue to try hurting both the Arab citizens and the American legislators they dislike, using such publications as the Weekly Standard.

Will the Jewish establishment be allowed to continue in this vein? Or will it be told publicly and in no uncertain terms it must learn the civilized way of doing things, or be reminded after each infraction it is begging for all the Jews – the guilty and the innocent – to be punished the way they have been punished since the beginning of time?

The New York Times is at it again

It is difficult to determine what motivates the editors of the New York Times to wish being considered journalistic jerks. But for some strange reason they keep doing the things that make them appear as that, and nothing more. This time, they published an article by Jack Shenker about whose background very little is known. I am aware of the book he wrote about Egypt; but that's one book I shall not read because, having read some of his articles, I have determined that reading this book will be a colossal waste of time.

The latest Shenker article to appear in the New York Times came under the title: “Egypt's Rickety Dictatorship,” published on January 28, 2017. To better understand my reaction to it, I must tell a story that goes back many decades. I was taking a course in film, and one of the professors was American. This was a confusing time even for us Canadians, as to what our identity boiled down to. And so you can imagine what it must have been like for an American that's teaching us American and Asian films and occasionally African films too.

He liked the essays and scripts I wrote, and gave me good grades. He also liked that I had a multi-cultural background, and was older than the others, having registered as a mature student. I visited him in his office one day, and we got talking about Pierre Berton who was famous for writing Canadian history, vowing to make it sound interesting and exciting at a time when the English Canadians among us were hung up on the idea of Canada being composed of “Two Solitudes,” and the French Canadians among us were hung up on the idea of “My Country is not a Country; it is Winter”.

At the end of the conversation, the professor asked me if I would read some of the writings done by the other students, and identify for him what I see in them as being typically Canadian. I did that, and there was one thing that jumped out of those papers loudly and clearly. Latin American unrest and revolutions being in the news at the time, Canadian youngsters took to them like cultural orphans thirsting to adopt Latin America as their motherland. They wrote essays and scripts based on that subject as if they were Castros and Guevaras … saying nothing about solitudes or Canada's Winter months.

I do not know enough about Jack Shenker to determine what he is missing in life or what he is after. But based on his writings, I am inclined to believe that he is thirsting to adopt the Egyptian Revolution as his motherland. This being the case, he does not feel obligated as a journalist to explain why he can make grandiose statements and definitive projections about his adopted parent without explaining what lies at the basis of his thinking.

And so you see him write a 1,340-word diatribe blasting the “dictatorial” tendencies of the parent he is rebelling against. He does that, having sided with the revolutionary kids who are indigenous to the land of Egypt, hoping to become brothers with them. And like them, he describes in the abstract the impressions he has of what the country is all about at this time, and what it has the potential of becoming. He may feel he has the credentials to do so, but to an observer, it is not enough to think of himself an expert on Egypt, having befriended only one Egyptian and his younger brother barely past their teenage years.

Now, guess how much Jack Shenker got out of those two. Here is his account of the encounter:

“The future seems vague and foggy, Tarek Hussein told me, but we won't abandon the fight. He was incarcerated under the former Muslim Brotherhood for opposing the government, and again under Sisi for being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. I met him in a cafe with his brother … Our conversation was interrupted by the arrival of what appeared to be a police informant. Tarek deftly steered us outside so that we could continue talking … the future Egyptian capital in the Eastern Desert, with its neatly demarcated segments is incompatible with the messy Cairo from which the Hussein brothers have emerged”.

That being all that Shenker got out of the two brothers, he found himself exhausted emotionally trying – with the little that he has – to identify with the children of Egypt's Revolution. He now admits that “no one knows what twists and turns will come next in Egypt”.

Having thus lifted the burden of being obligated to give the customary expert opinion as to what may lie ahead for his adopted motherland; Jack Shenker inadvertently dropped the shield that was keeping the secret of how he came to identify so closely with the Egyptian Revolution as to make it his won.

Here is what he says a friend told him once: “For these kids, the revolution was a new parent, something that brought them into the adult world and would make them, and which they believed they would eventually remake in turn. They are the orphans of the revolution, and they will never be content with life as it stands”.

And neither will he give up on a revolution he wishes to see unfold at perpetuity for its own sake without seeking to achieve a specific goal aside from the excitement that it will generate for his entertainment and that of others.

As to the editors of the New York Times, they too welcome the entertainment value they see in a revolution that never stops, but they also hunger to see permanent brakes put on Egypt's development. And that's what they calculate an ongoing revolution will do for the country.

After all, there has been 7,000 years of civilization on this planet, and Egypt has been in the lead during 6,000 of them. It is time – in the eyes of the Times editors – to let the other nations take their turn at wearing the crown.

A Cure deadlier than the Disease

What we have here is a case of someone suggesting to America: Let's shoot our children in the head because they might develop a headache at some point in the future. Believe it or not, dear reader, this story is related to the Holocaust.

So let's start with a definition of that word. Written with a capital (H), Holocaust generally refers to the ordeal suffered by Jews and others under the Nazis. But the word existed before that time, and meant 'destruction.' It continues to carry that meaning, and is written with a small (h), even when referring to the destruction of people in such places as Cambodia and Rwanda.

Aside from the attempt to deny or question elements of the Holocaust, there was never an effort to deny or question the existence of the other holocausts. When the word genocide was used as substitute to refer to the ordeal suffered by ethnic groups such as the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, or the Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, the debates became confused. That's when different people began to assign different meanings to both, holocaust and genocide.

The confusion is sorting itself out with the passage of time – as these things always do – but the one thing that refuses to come to a closure is the subject of the Nazi-on-Jews Holocaust. The main reason is that the Jewish establishment derives power and wealth from keeping the subject alive, exploiting it as it does to the hilt decade after decade. The image of exploitation is further highlighted by the Jewish support for what is increasingly termed the Jewish-on-Palestinian holocaust, and the refusal of the Jews to acknowledge the suffering of people living under a savage occupation in Palestine.

Seemingly oblivious of the ramifications, the Jewish establishment keeps concocting schemes of the kind that revolt the general public, turning sentiments of goodwill toward the Jews into disgust. An example of this came under the title: “The urgent need for Holocaust education in an era of 'alternative facts,'” written by Joe Fab and published on January 26, 2017 in the New York Daily News. Fab makes that suggestion at a time when people in America and Europe are becoming alarmed at a phenomenon you might call: Holocaust psychosis.

This is a debilitating condition that affects the individuals who develop a fixation about the Holocaust. It began with those who lost relatives in that event, but then migrated to other people by the relentless in-your-face drumming of Holocaust stories in the media. Aggravating this condition is the existence of Holocaust Memorials that do more to wring the fragile sentiment of children than teach them history.

The alarm was raised to a new level when the Jewish organizations began to orchestrate tours for youngsters, taking them to visit the concentration camps in Europe. That level is now reaching panic proportions because people like Joe Fab – who says he is not Jewish – want to force-feed Holocaust stories to non-Jewish children captive in every classroom. The purpose is to indoctrinate the little ones with a new morality in a plan that seeks to turn the schools into Jewish “madrassas.” These will be modeled after the Muslim madrassas which are being dismantled for causing more evil than good. And like they say, if you liked the Muslim madrassas, you'll love the Jewish madrassas.

That happens to be the scheme advocated in Joe Fab's article. The author begins the discussion with this complaint: “Today, only eight states require some form of Holocaust education in their public school curricula.” He goes on to suggest that “we have an opportunity to shine a spotlight on the need to make it a mandatory part of public education in all 50 states”.

But why does he want that? Because he says, it is “pertinent to what is happening in the country today.” He explains: “Trump is not Hitler. But one of the reasons that Hitler was able to rise to power and commit atrocities was because he used his office to create a powerful propaganda machine”.

Joe Fab does not explain how Donald Trump might use his tweets to create a powerful propaganda machine, but he wants to set-up an antidote to his efforts whatever they may entail, by turning every school in all 50 states into a Jewish madrassa.

In essence, therefore, Joe Fab is suggesting that when the federal congress will mandate the indoctrination of children in all 50 states, the indoctrination will prove to be: “a vital tool in the defense of our democracy and critical to helping our young people learn to stand up to demagoguery and evil”.

Hitler must be having a party in his grave.

Playing Rodeo in a Mideastern China Shop

Two articles in two New York tabloids printed on two consecutive days tell the story of the Jewish politico-diplomatic cowboy that's riding the American bull, and playing rodeo in the china shop that is the Middle East.

First, on January 24, 2017 came: “The hard facts Team Trump should face on the Middle East,” an article that was written by Ralph Peters and published in the New York Post. Second, on January 25, 2017 came: “A Jerusalem embassy? Liberals shouldn't worry,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “The Western part of the city is part of Israel, anyway you cut it,” written by Robert Abrams and published in the New York Daily News.

Abrams tells the story of how the idea of moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was hatched, being one of the fathers who contributed to its conception. The beauty of this account is that it sheds light on how petty decisions by small men can grow to become major calamities affecting millions of people. This hasn't happened with the American example as yet, but it serves as a metaphor that explains what might have happened when the Sykes-Picot Agreement was hatched – and for which there is no detailed chronicle.

Here, in condensed form, is Abrams's account:

“The year was 1972, and George McGovern was the 500-to-1 long-shot liberal candidate. My friend Hilly Gross and I were asked to hammer out elements for a McGovern Middle East program. We drafted that the United States should recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move its embassy there. Democrats adopted the following in the party's platform: 'recognize the establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The United States embassy should be moved to Jerusalem.' Soon thereafter, Republicans adopted it as well. In 1995, the Jerusalem Embassy Act was passed and called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city and for it to be recognized as the capital of Israel”.

This shows how useless the democratic system of governance has become in the new age. You have a bunch of losers that hammered a fat idea to serve Israel in the hope of winning the White House for a period of 4 years or maybe 8. They lost and the opposing party won, the way that things are done in America periodically.

Meanwhile, the one thing that remained constant throughout that time was the governing supra-structure of a Jewish establishment that stayed with the Jewish idea from 1972 to 1995 to this day. The Jews played one party against the other and continue to play them, thus making the idea a permanently bipartisan favorite. All that, despite the fact the idea has the potential to do to the world what Sykes-Picot did to it once already.

You can see in the Ralph Peters article how dire the situation is in the part of the Middle East that's called the Levant. And you can extrapolate what will happen to the entire region if the Jews are allowed to rodeo-ride the American bull into the china shop that is the Middle East today. Peters gives his remedial prescription for the region, beginning with a preamble that goes over several paragraphs, and can be condensed as follows:

“We lost the upper Middle East. It's time to cut our losses. It's a lost cause. We cling to fantasies of success in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. We cannot break the hold of Washington-think on foreign policy that benefits not the United States but our enemies … Here is how to exploit the weaknesses of Iran, Russia and Turkey”.

Peters lays out his views with regard to each of these places. What he says has the sound of valid points from which to start a good debate. He also mentions in passing a few other places in the Gulf Region and North Africa, and then drops the name Israel about which he says this: “Support Israel. Always”.

And that's where the link is established – in the mind of the reader – between the Ralph Peters article and that of Robert Abrams. To begin with, Peters is showing – with the use of the word 'always' – how the principles crafted by the Jews for America make permanent what favors Israel, and how they work to reverse what criticizes Israel. They place Israel above the law, and force America to protect what kills the democratic system of governance.

When you combine this principle with the existence of a permanent Jewish supra-governing system shepherding every incoming administration to the promotion of Israel's interests, you know that the democratic system is seriously flawed. When you know that Israel is served at the expense, and to the detriment of everyone, including America, you have an explanation as to why the democratic system is beginning to crack.

On ulterior Motives and projected Motives

We all go through life having a public persona that is a modified (read polished) version of who we really are.

In simple English, this means we have a set of ulterior motives we make sure not to reveal, and we adopt a public posture that projects a different set of motives. We manage the complexity of this situation by pretending to work towards achieving the projected motives, but in reality try to achieve our ulterior motives.

Qualitatively, we are all the same because our nature is our common heritage. But we're not the same quantitatively because the gap between who we are and who we pretend to be depends on our history. It varies from one individual to another and from one culture to another. Moreover, in the same way that some individuals do not worry about the image they project of themselves – however good or bad it may be – some cultures communicate that what you see is what you get.

If a group of individuals or an entire people are unexpectedly taken out of one environment and placed into another, they may experience the famous 'culture shock' that could rattle them. Otherwise, we are a flexible species that easily adapts to the culture in which we find ourselves. But while we try to live as serenely as we can, we still maintain our antennas in full operating mode because we continually try to assess what the real motives of the other guy or gal may be.

Some people believe they are a good judge of character and can read anyone like an open book. Other people say they have the famous sixth sense which helps them decide who to trust and who not to. It also happens that a law enforcement institution would, at times, consult someone calling themselves psychic to help solve a difficult case. But is there a way for the rest of us, who may not be so endowed, to sense what someone is up to as they discuss a situation that’s familiar to us?

Yes there is a way, though not a surefire one. We are lucky to have a perfect example on which to try our hand. It is an article that came under the title: “Defending the civilized world” and the subtitle: “Eradicating 'radical Islamic terrorism' will require a long war.” It was written by Clifford D. May and published on January 24, 2017 in The Washington Times.

What we try to do is determine if the writer has one focused message or if he is vacillating between several of them. If the message is focused, the chances are that it is of the 'what you see is what you get' variety. But if the message branches out in several directions, the chances are that one branch expresses the real motive of the writer whereas the others are hiding his ulterior motives.

The motive that is disclosed by Clifford May is what he borrowed from President Trump: “In his inaugural address, President Trump vowed to unite the world against radical Islamic terrorism.” But then, May goes on to say this: “Our European allies are civilized to a fault embrac[ing] the mantra 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.'” And that's where we sense the presence of another message – what must be the writer's ulterior motive. Thus, whereas May pretends to fight Islamic terrorism, his real motive may be the targeting of what he argues the Europeans are calling freedom fighters.

Going over his entire article, we find that the writer is describing the doings of al-Qaeda and its many offshoots, especially the one calling itself the Islamic State (IS). That also happens to be what President Trump was describing in his speech. Mindful that no one – Europeans, Arabs, Muslims, or even members of the IS, refer to themselves as freedom fighters – we wonder who it is that Clifford May has alluded to as being illegitimate freedom fighters?

There is only one answer to that question because there is only one people under military occupation in the world today: the Palestinians. We conclude that the hidden motive of Clifford May is to conflate the struggle of the Palestinians trying to free themselves, with the attempt of the IS to become the Muslim answer to an increasingly delegitimized Jewish State (JS); referred to as Israel.

The hidden motive of Clifford May is now revealed. The more that IS is seen doing to the Syrian people what the JS is doing to the Palestinian people, the more Clifford May and those like him will want to deflect attention to something else. They will talk about the Nazis and the Communists without ever mentioning the Israeli settlers who are but a primitive manifestation of Nazism and Communism combined.

The newest Israeli Agenda for America

The Israeli Amitai Etzioni wrote an article about the Marshall Plan for the Middle East that the outgoing Secretary of State, John Kerry proposed not long ago, and left for his successor to deal with. I have no views to share on that subject at this time, and do not comment on this part of the article.

What I find disturbing, however, is the extent to which Etzioni misrepresents the societies which he discusses, the cultures that he mentions to make his points, and the extent to which he mutilates history so as to create fake arguments that can support the newest agenda designed for America by the Jewish establishment. And that's what I am discussing.

Etzioni's article came under the title: “Just Say No to Middle East Bailouts,” published on January 23, 2017 in The National Interest. As suggested by the title, the writer argues against Kerry's 'Marshall Plan' to help develop the economies of the Middle East, a move Etzioni characterizes as bailing out those economies. And so, he comes up with a number of reasons why America must not embark on such a project.

Among other things, some of the reasons he cites are sociological, some cultural, and some historical. In the sociological category, Etzioni makes this remark: “Kerry said about 100 million children will not go to school. Providing those kids with an education but no job prospect … is sociologically explosive.” This means educating these children is a bad idea; don't do it.

In fact, that's only a small slice of a larger argument that the Jewish establishment has been pushing on the American public and elites. It is sounding the alarm about the technological progress that's being achieved in the Arab world. Its excuse for doing this is that the Arabs need labor intensive industries to absorb their unemployed youth, not hi-tech labor saving jobs. So now you have the Israeli professor Amitai Etzioni, echo that same sentiment, saying that Arab children do not need to go to school and be educated.

As to the cultural category, Etzioni says this: “The first loyalty of citizens in many Middle Eastern countries is to their ethnic or confessional group––not to the nation. Thus, people tend to fight for their tribe's share, rather than make sacrifices for the country as a whole … They gridlock the national politics.” no, he was not talking about the American congress; he was talking about the Arabs. But where did he get these ideas from?

The idea of people being loyal to their tribe rather than the whole country was voiced by a Jordanian official to explain why his country succeeds in some political activities but not others. Because he did not mention the splits that exist in such places as Canada, Belgium, even America where the Red/Blue division is causing one party to dismantle the legacy of another, Etzioni thought he was looking at a purely Middle Eastern phenomenon. Undoubtedly, he is a shallow man endowed with the cognitive powers of a fruit-fly!

If you haven't been scandalized as yet, wait till you see what Etzioni does in the history category. He mentions the German sociologist Max Weber who was born in 1864 and died in 1920. Etzioni must have been aware of these dates because he says that “Max Weber argued in the early twentieth century that a culture's values were important for understanding capitalism”.

Be that as it may, Etzioni goes on to say this: “Weber noted the striking difference between the high rates of development among the Asian 'tigers'––China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea––and the low rate of development in Muslim nation-states, especially those that adhere to Sharia law”.

Did you get this, my friend? If you haven't, look at the message I am sending to those responsible for the quality and integrity of education at George Washington University where Amitai Etzioni gets paid to teach.

This Israeli professor is a fraud. He says that Weber mentioned Asian Tigers when the man died long before there were Asian tigers. He says Weber mentioned Muslim nation-states at a time when most of the Muslim world was under the occupation of European powers – not made of nation-states. He says that Weber berated Sharia law at a time when the Germans were losing faith in Capitalism, and toying with new ideas – Socialism and Sharia financing among them – for possible use as substitutes.

Those at George Washington University, who value the good reputation of their institution and the rights of their students, must see to it that Amitai Etzioni gets his just reward: a boot in the rear end … and out he goes.

America, its Albatross and the World

What do American patriots want for America? A fierce debate on this subject has been raging for several years, and the matter is no clearer today than the muddied waters which the Jewish commentators call “moral clarity”.

That term was injected into everyday parlance when the Jews exploited the tragedy of 9/11 and established a new principle that turned out to be a killer albatross around America's neck. The Jews put it there by slapping the atrocious Jewish logic on W. Bush as they argued this principle: “When al-Qaeda hit America, the W. called it a terrorist organization and hit back. By the same token, Palestinian kids under military occupation must be named terrorists – not freedom fighters – when they fight for their freedom.” And the W. uttered a brainless amen to that.

From that beginning, the Jews kept on adding to the principle, weaving a whole network of principles around America like a spider weaves a cocoon around a fly before sucking its juices.

They fused the 'name-a-terrorist' principle to an earlier one, and made it so that they and Israel could now have it both ways. The earlier principle was to the effect that Israel was so much apart from everyone else; it could not be compared to anyone. But now that Israel was compared to America's response to al-Qaeda, it was necessary to make a modification.

The fusion of the two principles produced this logic: when someone is given an endowment, Israel must – in the name of fairness – be given a comparable endowment. But when Israel is given and endowment, no one should be given a comparable endowment because that would encourage jealousy. The result of this fusion of principles has been that America was mobilized in its entirety to serve Israel, only Israel and no one but Israel.

That is how – from this point on – having it both ways became the double-standard governing America's handling of all matters concerning Israel and the Jews. In addition, because it is as hard in America to criticize Israel or the Jews as it is to criticize the dear leader in North Korea, the American people are made to drink a daily dose of poisoned double-standard in total silence. Also, because it is as easy everywhere in the world to criticize Israel and the Jews as it is to criticize the Nazis, the peoples of the world breathe the fresh air of freedom at a time when the Americans – who used to enjoy the same privilege but no more – can only yearn for days long gone when they too could breathe freedom as they listened to bells ring the joys of liberty.

The consequence of the new American realities is that the peoples of the world witnessed that evolution, and the nations of the world have adapted to it. You can see how all that is working in an article which came under the title: “Trump's First Foreign Policy Win Could Be in Syria,” written by David Pollock and published on January 19, 2017 on the website of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Look at the deep sense of reversal of fortunes that's encapsulated in Pollock's opening paragraph: “If this sounds like a Borat joke, it isn't. Russia is convening a round of Syrian peace talks to which it invited the incoming administration.” That's the sad story, told in two simple sentences. It's about an America that used to be the conductor of the orchestra, now invited to play second fiddle in Russia's orchestra.

America was reduced to that position because Jewish moral clarity decreed that America must consider the world to be made of two sides: The good ones who are on our side, and the evil ones who are not. The Jewish logic further established that the good ones must be supported; the bad ones attacked. Because Israel is the best of the good ones, it must be singled out to receive all that America has to offer. Because Assad of Syria is the worst of the bad ones, he must be toppled and his regime changed.

At this point, the Jews saw the need for one more principle to be fused with the earlier ones. They appealed to the patriots of America by telling them that to be patriotic was to talk tough to everyone in the world so that “we be feared by our enemies, and trusted by our friends”.

That mentality being of the nineteenth century gunboat diplomacy, it failed pathetically in the twenty first century. In fact, it had the opposite effect in that Russia became the beneficiary of the failure. And so will benefit every rival that will challenge America in the future.

Jewish moral clarity brought America to this point, and may take it deeper still into the quicksand of Jewish nonsense.

Derangement Syndrome of America's Pundits

Once in a while Steven A. Cook writes an article which typifies what it is that troubles America's punditry. He shows the industry to be filled with people who may have started their careers with an open mind and a rounded view of the world that's surrounding them, but have become increasingly narrow minded and one dimensional.

Cook's latest foray in this vein came in the form of an article he wrote under the title: “Middle East derangement syndrome” and the subtitle: “Egypt, Turkey and Israel have all fallen prey to delusions about Trump.” It was published on January 22, 2017 on the website of Salon Magazine. This being a discussion on the situation in three countries, I only choose to discuss what is reported about Egypt. I do so in the interest of covering the subject comprehensively.

Steven Cook starts his article by saying that the Egyptians were so happy with the election result in America that their President “Sisi reportedly considered attending [Trump's] inauguration.” Well, it must be said that this was a false report. It could have originated in Washington where it was circulated as rumor, because no trace of that was detected in Egypt or anywhere else.

Here is a passage that points to the narrow mindedness of the American pundits: “It all seems strange given how Trump rode to power … appealing to isolationists. If there was any sign about Trump's approach to U.S. foreign policy, it was retrenchment … leaders in these countries seem to [fantasize] that Trump will be a [good] steward of their security...” But the reality is the opposite of that. Both the people and government in Egypt have always wanted all foreign influences, including the American, to stay out of the country – way out.

That is especially true when it comes to the toxic gifts of depravity they call Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) which are in reality creatures of the American Congress of horror. These things are considered to be time bombs designed to subvert the governments of other nations. Their mission is to infiltrate those that take them in and remodel their hosts in the image of America's legislative houses of political prostitution.

The ultimate goal of these roving horror shows is to paralyze the foreign governments they infiltrate, causing them not to act unless ordered by Jewish voices that seek to implement the Judeo-Israeli agenda. But Egypt is lucky in that it has nearly 50,000 home-grown civil societies looking after the needs of their people extremely well. The last thing they want is to be contaminated by Jewish-American political garbage.

Instead of seeing things in this light and discussing them for what they are, Steven Cook uses four paragraphs to make the narrative sound like Egypt desperately wants something from America. But after saying all that he desires to say, you find that the writer has only managed to demonstrate that Egypt wants the American monkey off its back, and nothing more. Here is how that goes:

In a paragraph that contains 93 words there appears this passage: “The Egyptians are convinced that the Trump administration will drop objections to Egypt's record on human rights.” The next paragraph contains 86 words, including this passage: “Even if Trump does what the leaders want, how will it make things better? The Egyptians seem likely to get what they want: a change in tone in relations with Washington.” The third paragraph contains 110 words just to say this: “better relations with Washington won't make the insurgency in the Sinai go away or make Egypt's economy suddenly grow.” The fourth paragraph contains 104 words, and makes this point: “the Egyptians are likely to confront the reality that the problem in their relationship with the United States has been in Cairo, not Washington.” What? What the bleep is he talking about?

Where in all that verbiage is there a hint that unresolved problems do exist between Cairo and Washington? The only thing that comes out with clarity from the 393 words which are spread out in four paragraphs is that the American human rights load of untreated and stinky rubbish has nauseated the people and government of Egypt to such an extent, they will have nothing to do with it ever again.

In addition, Steven Cook seems to promise that President Trump is inclined to put an end to the unmitigated Judeo-American depravity of inflicting on other nations what he knows is killing America. So the question to ask is this: what does Steven Cook mean when he characterizes these realities as “the problem has been in Cairo, not Washington”? Will he explain? Don't hold your breath.

How a Success Story can become a Failure

Nature has made it so that when you are big and strong, you infuse the fear into and command the respect of those who are lesser than you. But it can also happen that when you are big and strong, you earn the scorn and derision of your peers as well as those who are lesser than you. How can this happen?

For you to have become big and strong means that you did many things correctly. You know what these things are, and so does everyone that watches you, admires you and makes you their role model. The fact that you did things correctly and continue to do them well, means that you know what you want, and go for it without waver. This makes you decisive and resolute in the eyes of those watching you, a posture that adds to your aura.

As long as you're in this mode, things will continue to go well for you because nothing will change. What can happen, however, is that subtle things will begin to change “internally” with you. That is, without those watching knowing the reasons why, a transformation might begin to affect your decision making process. It may take those watching you a while, but they will eventually detect a change of behavior that tells them you're not being “yourself.” Depending on their temperament, each will react one way or the other to match their interests to your new condition.

If things intensify, and you continue to behave as a different person, people of every rank will sense the continued absurdity of the situation. The effect will be that the admiration they had for you will gradually turn into contempt. That's because they will have guessed that you're getting bad advice. But don't let these mild words fool you because they are but a euphemism for something harsher. The words actually mean that people now believe you've become the moral prostitute of those who whisper in your ear.

Worse, your predicament can still be pushed deeper into the realm of the absurd. It will happen when the lead whisperer begins to tell you how to respond to the negative reactions thrown at you by your former admirers. The whisperer will most certainly advise you to act decisively and resolutely. But believe me, there is nothing more offensive to the sensibilities of a human being than to see a moral prostitute act with force against someone weaker just because a whisperer so instructed him.

That's what happened to America, surrounded as it is by a mob of Jewish whisperers posing as pundits. An example exists on how one of them has managed to recruit a mindless disciple, using the good name of his family to tell the newly elected President of the United States how to push his country into the swamp more effectively and faster than the worst enemy could do in a hundred years. The example came under the title: “Donald Trump Should Isolate Iran Immediately,” an article that was written by Dennis Ross and Jeb Bush, and published on January 19, 2017 on the website of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The two authors are members of an organization called “United Against Nuclear Iran” whose goals must have been met by the fact that an agreement was reached with regard to the issue of a nuclear Iran. But as it turned out, the members of the organization only used that issue as a fear-mongering tool to fashion a more elaborate scheme aimed at tricking America into destroying Iran before the latter could secure its rightful place under the sun. This would be in keeping with the Jewish blood-soaked habit apparent in what happened to Iraq and Libya.

Here is a condensed version of how the whispering demons want America to start the process: “In the past, we spoke about the Plan, which delayed Iran at the price of abandoning Western leverage. To respond effectively, the Trump administration should not rip up the deal. We must raise the cost of Iranian intransigence. To that end, the Trump administration should adopt a more expansive strategy towards Tehran: namely by addressing issues beyond the scope of the agreement”.

This too is in keeping with the Jewish philosophy of dividing the world into those who may be on their side, and those who may not. This done, they recruit the biggest sucker that's on their side, and keep nagging him to go destroy the chosen enemy of the day. To make sure that the sucker does not relent, the mob constantly makes up fake stories about how the other side poses an existential threat to everyone, and must be destroyed.

America has been a sucker serving the Jews for too long already. It is time for President Donald Trump to say enough is enough … and start looking after the needs of America rather than those of the Jews and Israel.

Wisdom protects you against future Pitfalls

Nobody is a prophet; therefore no one knows what the future holds. Because experience says there will be good times and bad times, wisdom says you should prepare for the bad times as best you can. But the question is how to prepare for what you don't know.

That's when wisdom comes to the rescue. It gives an advice you may call the Golden Advice. From it flows all that you need to know as you go through life. The Golden Advice goes like this: Whereas individuals seek to upset the natural equilibrium to take advantage of what ensues, life tends to restore the equilibrium. Whereas human beings design schemes for short term gain, life's response is never constrained by time. It will restore the equilibrium instantly or restore it in the long run.

The universal lesson that flows from this wisdom is that you must never upset the equilibrium whose restoration you may not be able to handle when life will decide that the time had come to do the restoration. And you never stand in the way of life as it tries to restore equilibrium because if you do, life will chew you and spit you out.

If you, my friend, feel comfortable with this philosophy of life, you'll find little comfort in the philosophy that's espoused by Benny Avni, author of “The recipe for foreign-policy greatness starts with FDR,” an article that was published on January 19, 2017 in the New York Post. Avni starts his discussion by wondering if the foreign policy of the newly elected President Donald Trump will come to look like that of Barack Obama or that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR).

This being a comparison between three different situations, each mired in its own mix of equilibrium and disequilibrium, you prepare yourself for a detailed discussion on what might have constituted a desirable balance in the era of FDR, in the era of Barack Obama, and what will be the era of Donald Trump. But you get disappointed because that's not what Benny Avni is offering his readers.

In fact, Avni's piece shows that he was never interested in what Obama did or tried to do to craft a world that's in equilibrium. Instead, he is interested in what Donald Trump can do in terms of theatrics – absent a world war – to make himself look like Franklin Roosevelt, winner of the Second World War. As to the lens through which Avni sees the unfolding of theatrics, it is showing him the following scenes: “Russia, Turkey and Iran convened the Astana summit. That's bad for us … So how can Trump turn it around? … Projecting military power is one way”.

It is bad enough to know that Avni has placed the playing of theatrics above helping to restore equilibrium where disequilibrium has seeped in. It is even worse to know that he is calling on President Trump to be the agent of disequilibrium. Sadly, that's what Benny Avni is doing. You can tell he is on the wrong track because you see him collide against life's attempt to restore equilibrium where it was lost.

The best place where you can see that phenomenon is off the coast of China. Benny Avni let it be known he is unhappy because “[China's] military has expanded in the last decade. President Xi Jinping became aggressive, dominating the seas around him … China could become a formidable foe.” That's an example demonstrating how life is attempting to restore equilibrium where it used to exist but does no more. Things may not go smoothly at the start of a process in which China regains its rightful place under the sun, but if you try to oppose the attempt, you put yourself in a situation where life will chew you and spit you out.

And yet, to oppose the attempt is what Avni is recommending. He seems to have no inkling as to what the people of the region want for themselves or their neighbors. Or if he does, he doesn't care what they want because he believes that his wishes for them supersede their wishes for themselves.

What they want is a silent partner whose presence in the region will speak for itself. They don't want a “new sheriff in town” who will poke North Korea or China in the ribs. They want to see life take its course restoring the equilibrium that was lost. But Avni has convinced himself that America will finally turn bellicose against China when Japan's prime minister will visit Washington and meet with Donald Trump.

Avni will be surprised to know that the Japanese intend to tell America to cool it, or stay out of the region because the last thing the people want is an American maritime quagmire on their doorstep. Avni is in for a rude awakening because he has not yet digested the Golden Advice.

The Rokovsky perpetual Deception Machine

Dennis Ross and David Makovsky are out to deceive the President of the United States, Donald Trump so as to con the people of Palestine, thus give Netanyahu what he wants. And when all hell will break loose, as it surely will, they'll blame the fiasco on the American President as they always do.

The two characters co-wrote: “The way forward on settlements,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “Advice for Trump from two veteran Mideast negotiators,” published on January 19, 2017 in the New York Daily News. What they do in this piece is blame Barack Obama for the failures that resulted from the advice they have been giving for decades … as indeed they will blame future failures on Donald Trump if he makes the mistake of taking their advice.

Their blueprint for the next set of failures to take place under Trump is so clear; a teenager can read it like reading a book for kiddies. Look what they chose to be the first thing they say with regard to the situation in Palestine: “Israeli settlements are a problem – and make peace difficult to achieve. Historically, however, settlements have not been the main impediment to peace, as Israel has dismantled them when it withdrew from the Sinai and from Gaza”.

With ambiguity hanging in the air about settlements being a problem but not an impediment, the writers go on to blame the lack of progress in the peace talks on Obama's “special focus on this issue.” Why is that? Because “Obama called for a complete settlement freeze,” they say. And that's their way of telling the new President he should publicly declare it's okay with him if Jews from America or anywhere in the world traveled to Palestine, pushed the indigenous people out of their homes and their lands, and took their properties without negotiation and without an agreement.

And just as they tried – a few weeks ago – to con President Trump into moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (intending to scuttle any possible progress after this happens,) their intention this time is to get his commitment on the issue of settlements, and use that as a license to rob a people already subdued by the use of America's most advanced weapons. And Israel will continue after that to scuttle every effort at making progress in the peace talks … assuming there is going to be any.

But why do Ross and Makovsky believe that the Trump Administration would fall for this demonic trick? They believe it because they paved the way for it, and convinced themselves they can pull it off. Look what they did in this regard. First, they said this: “Incoming Presidents like to demonstrate how different they are from their predecessors … a change from the Obama approach is needed.” That's playing on Trump's ego.

And then, speaking of settlements, they pull a fraud and mutilate history like this: “Israel demonstrated a readiness to dismantle them when it withdrew from the Sinai and from Gaza.” This quotation is an abbreviated version of what they actually said. Let's look at it first, and then look at the expanded version.

The insinuation here is that Israel is ready to dismantle the settlements in the West Bank because it did so previously in the Sinai and in Gaza. But that's misleading because the fact remains that Israel never relinquished an inch of Arab soil voluntarily, as it was kicked out of the Sinai, the Eastern Golan, Gaza and Southern Lebanon. It continues to occupy the West Bank because the inhabitants there are helpless, having no means to defend themselves.

We now look at the expanded version of their claim. We see how Ross and Makovsky distorted reality by inserting lies into the text. They say that Israel withdrew from the Sinai as part of a peace treaty with Egypt. The fact is that there was a war and not a peace treaty to retake the Sinai. It went on for six years, from 1967 to 1973. The final Egyptian storming of Israel's defenses took place with the involvement of the largest number of tanks in history. As to the air battles, the Egyptians set a trap for Israel's air force, and managed to down a third of it in the first few hours of the war. And that's not how people negotiate a peace treaty.

Despite the fact that Anwar Sadat had informed President Nixon he had no intention of going into Israel, both the Americans and the Israelis feared he will not keep his word. And so Kissinger suggested they stop the fighting and negotiate the modalities of Israel's pull out from the rest of the Sinai. In the interest of saving lives, Sadat accepted Kissinger's suggestion, stopped chasing the Israelis out, and negotiated a timetable for the remaining Israeli troops to get out.

Because Sadat did not want Egypt to occupy or annex Palestinian territory, he told Manachem Begin to keep Gaza or let it go free. Israel kept Gaza for a while, recruited members of the Muslim Brotherhood and trained them to fight Arafat's PLO. Instead of doing that, the Brotherhood members gave themselves the name Hamas, turned against the Israelis and kicked them out of Gaza. And that's not how settlers withdraw unilaterally.

The Palestinians of the West Bank know this history, and treat with contempt any suggestion that Israel will dismantle settlements without being pressured by the international community or by an insurrection that might be named a Third Intifada.

To avoid the latter, the PLO leadership is doing all it can to have the world pressure Israel to stop its criminal activities, ditch the idea that God gave every riffraff calling himself a Jew the right to rob Palestinian property, and sit down to discuss the modality of vacating the West Bank peacefully.

Can Donald Trump help set-up this process and move it forward? We'll find out sooner or later.

The Genius the Jews can do without

Why do you still have people celebrating “The Genius of Judaism” when it is evident that since the beginning of recorded history, this so-called genius has brought nothing but calamity to the people that embraced it?

We can begin to answer this question by studying the article which came under the title: “Jews, Be Wary of Trump,” written by Bernard-Henri Lévy, and published on January 19, 2017 in the New York Times. Incidentally, Lévy is also the author of the recent work: “The Genius of Judaism.”

Our study can also be enhanced by contrasting Lévy's current article against one that was published a day earlier in the same New York Times. It came under the title: “Israel as the lights Go out,” and was written by the Times own columnist Roger Cohen.

There is much to look at in Lévy's 1,550-words article, but the point to be made for the purpose of this discussion, can be articulated well enough by looking at two short passages.

The first is this: “There is a law that governs the relations between the Jews and the rest of the world … 'love of the Jewish people' … This love is what's required of an American president in dealings affecting Israel.” The second passage is the following: “That period has been labeled populist … in this new political culture that has now encircled the earth … to ally with that sort of 'populism' would be to betray Israel's calling”.

These two passages define the so-called Jewish genius. People like Bernard-Henri Lévy continue to believe that it will ultimately bring salvation to the Jews and give them what they have been waiting for since the beginning of time. On the other hand, it causes people like Roger Cohen to squirm. You can see evidence of this in his article where he says: “UN resolution 2334 infuriated Netanyahu … He seemed surprised that ignoring Obama's veto of an earlier resolution would have consequences. Obama ran out of patience because Israel planned more settlements while absorbing more than half of our global military financing. Gratitude is not Netanyahu's forte”.

What do these passages demonstrate? Well, Lévy says that the Jew is owed unconditional love because it is the law that governs the relations between Jews and non-Jews, thus the Jew cannot be reproached for anything. That's the law according to him. But who was it that made such law? That's no one's business to know.

In any case, this puts the Jew above the law in the same way that the “Dear Leader” of North Korea is above the law, for example. Come to think of it, that's the ultimate form of populism which, according to Lévy, is the birthright of every Jew … whether he was born a Jew or is a recent convert.

Since this law cannot be enforced on the seven billion people who inhabit the planet, it is sufficient to make the leaders of jurisdictions love the Jews and Israel unconditionally. But the masses must be made aware of this state of affairs and so, the leaders must initiate legislation that will impose the will of the Jews on the masses.

For example, people like Nikki Haley who used to be governor of an American jurisdiction, has expressed her pride in the fact that she was the first to sign anti-BDS legislation, penalizing the citizens of her state for not loving Israel enough to buy products made by slave labor under Jewish military rule.

This being the reality of life in America today, you can imagine that someone like Netanyahu would not want to express gratitude just because America is giving him more than half of what it spends on global military financing. If anything, he expects to be loved and thanked for taking the aid.

And here is the crucial point: When non-Jewish leaders, such as Donald Trump, manage to create a populist movement over which they preside, they deny the Jews their birthright. This happens because the love that would have gone to the Jews is usurped by these non-Jews. And that's what is upsetting Lévy.

Given that this “political culture has now encircled the earth,” Lévy is upset because some people “ally themselves with that sort of populism, thus betray Israel's calling”.

This man is oblivious of the reality that when the will of the Jew is imposed on the masses, the masses will eventually respond as a mob, no matter where or when it will happen.

Defining Israel's criminal Hoax against itself

Clifford D. May who is president of the foundation that says it exists to defend the democracies, has written an article that came under the title: “Defining violent extremism down” and the subtitle: “There are Iranian moderates, but Rafsanjani was not among them.” It was published on Jan. 17, 2017 in The Washington Times.

The article is about Iran in general and its former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in particular. The man passed away not long ago, and was eulogized by those who knew him well, and those who dealt with him lightly. Most said good or neutral things about him because this is how normal human beings behave when someone dies. But then, there are the Jews – such as Clifford May and his colleagues – who view themselves as separate from the human species, thus do things in tortuous ways. It is, in fact, how May has handled Rafsanjani's death.

Chagrined by the praises heaped on the man from every direction, Clifford May decided to set the record straight. He says that Rafsanjani was a revolutionary motivated by bellicose religious beliefs. He went on to explain that this attitude rendered the Iranian “regime implacably hostile to America, Israel and the liberal world order.” This is why it happened that during Rafsanjani's reign “foreign assassination teams ran rampant in Europe, eliminating Iranian artists, activists and dissidents,” he added.

Citing colleagues attached to his outfit, and others who work for like-minded publications, Clifford May draws a list of what he and they say were crimes committed on the world stage by Iran during Rafsanjani's watch. The trouble, however, is that not one such crime was traced back to Iran, let alone to Rafsanjani himself. In fact, neither May nor his colleagues offer as much as a shred of evidence to back their claims aside from the assertion that what they say is the absolute truth.

So then, what do we make of all that? Well, this is the kind of incredibility that should cause a fair minded person to pause for a moment and take a fresh look at the whole situation from scratch. What comes to mind when we do this, is the reality that people have the tendency to attribute to those they hate the sins they see in themselves and their friends. We must therefore ask the question: Could it be that Clifford May and his colleagues are attributing to Iran and Rafsanjani what they saw in someone else?

To answer that question, we take May's suggestion which came at the end of his article. It is to the effect that “the history of the past two generations might have produced wiser policies.” So we ask: What happened during the past two generations that may be pertinent to this discussion? We find that Iran never attacked anyone. On the contrary, it was Iran that saw America subvert its democratically elected government. It saw America arm and encourage Iraq's Saddam Hussein to attack it with chemical weapons. And it saw America team up with Israel in an effort to cybersabotage its installations. That's quite a litany.

And that's not all because during those two generations, Israel attacked its neighbors something like a dozen times. It sent its air force to commit “targeted assassinations” on unarmed people who did nothing worse than mind their own business. And it sent goons to Europe, Lebanon and the Gulf nations where they assassinated Arab scientists and businessmen who worked for the betterment of their people. This too is quite a litany.

And so we conclude that Clifford May and his colleagues did nothing more than collect the dirty brushes left behind by America and Israel, and used them to paint false images of Iran and Rafsanjani.

And there is the ultimate irony of Israel's Shimon Peres dying a few months before Rafsanjani. What the two have in common is that people credit each with developing his country's nuclear program. In addition, May's colleagues seem to hint that there was a cause and effect relationship between the two. Here is what they say:

“In 2001, Rafsanjani threatened: 'If one day the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill' … We may assume Rafsanjani had that in mind when he became the driving force behind the development of the Islamic republic's nuclear program.” In other words, it was Israel's program that inspired the creation of Iran's nuclear program.

As it turned out, however, there is a difference between the two programs. It is that we know what's involved in the Iranian nuclear program. We know where it's at now, and where it will be decades from now because it was practically designed by the (P5+1) world powers.

As to Israel, it is now universally accepted that its nuclear program started as a hoax. The hoax was maintained for several decades till it vanished into nothingness, leaving behind a solid Iran whose power grew exponentially thanks to Israel's hoax.

In that sense, Israel's hoax turned out to be a criminal doing directed against the self.

Watch Alan Dershowitz justify the Holocaust

If you're old enough to remember the day when Alan Dershowitz popped in front of the television cameras and told the world about his philosophy of life, you will not be surprised to see what he is saying now.

That day was the day when Dershowitz proudly cogitated something to the effect that “you cannot blame Israel for doing what others have done,” which was understood to mean that Israel had the right to do to the Palestinians what anyone had done to someone anywhere in the world, at any time since the beginning of time. And ever since that time, people everywhere have amused themselves trying to decipher what you might call the Dershowellian language of the modern era.

But what is he saying now that is so funky? Well, look it up yourself. It is in the article he wrote under the title: “Obama's Mid-East Legacy Is Tragic Failure,” published on January 13, 2017 on the Algemeiner website. Here is the most hair-raising passage in that infamous text: “These actions have disincentivized the Palestinian leadership from accepting the Netanyahu offer.” The invented word here, that is key to understanding the Orwellian principle underlying the Dershowitz philosophy, is “disincentivize.” Okay, so we have a new word: disincentivize. But what does it mean in this context or any context?

Well, here is an explanation that should be exhaustive enough to clarify the point: To give someone an incentive for accepting an offer is to “sweeten the pot” so to speak. That is, an incentive is a positive addition to what is already on the table. It is meant to respond to the needs and/or concerns of the party with whom you're negotiating ... expecting that he'll respond in kind and do the same for you. It may only be a partial response and not a full one, but that is how compromises are made, and how final deals that both sides can live with, are ultimately forged. It all boils down to what we call a win-win situation.

If now you turn that principle on its head and say that sweetening the pot means removing the incentive which forces the other party to negotiate on your terms, you automatically admit that what's on the table is not a pot to be sweetened or not be sweetened. Rather, it is a situation that is meant to force the other party to capitulate even before the negotiations begin. That is, the setting you're describing is not one of commercial negotiation or any kind of freely adopted negotiations; it is at best a coercive setting if not one of criminal blackmail and the threat of military assault.

In fact, that situation looks and feels like the setting that's created by terrorists holding your children hostage in your house and asking for a ransom to release them. If and when the police manage to free the children, the terrorists complain that you have been disincentivized from negotiating. That's because from the position of helplessness in which the terrorists put you, the police made it possible for you to rise to a position of rough equality with them. This being the case, you now find yourself able to negotiate the modality of the terrorists vacating the house, perhaps in return for a getaway car or another incentive that may appeal to them.

Look at it this way, my friend: When thugs create a hostage situation, we call this condition hostage-taking or call it an act of terrorism. When an entity that wants to be thought of as a nation engages in this kind of behavior, we call the behavior state terrorism. When the entity does it to an entire people and not just an individual or a handful of them, we call this situation a holocaust.

That is what Israel has been inflicting on the Palestinians for decades. It pretended to negotiate peace while killing Palestinian children, and committing regular armed robberies on Palestinian properties. The intent from the start has been to ethnic cleanse what is left of Palestine so as to annex it and make it Jewish property.

What Alan Dershowitz has done therefore, is justify in his own mind, the idea behind the holocaust that Israel continues to inflict on the Palestinians. But in so doing, he also legitimized the Holocaust that the Nazis have inflicted on the Jews decades ago. And while setting this precedent – if only on paper – he legitimized every holocaust that future madmen will want to unleash on those who cannot defend themselves.

And would you believe it that in the process of doing all this damage, Alan Dershowitz has also managed to delegitimize Israel's right to call itself a country. What a genius this moron!