What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Egypt Open Thread

To judge by private correspondence, I think the consensus among WWWW's contributors is that, when it comes to the ongoing crisis in Egypt, "the worst thing we can do is something" - and that is certainly my own view (except that I think we ought to give any aid & comfort we can to the Coptic Christian minority there).

But, then, I'm a pretty doctrinaire isolationist (the more so, the more I learn about the USG's current role in the world). So I can understand that others on the right might feel differently. Indeed, it's struck me, in the last few days, that there's a remarkable range of conservative opinion here:

Auster, unsurprisingly, sides with Israel, siding with Mubarak.

Mencius Moldbug, reactionary extraordinaire, goes Auster one better in the "stability ueber alles" department.

Meanwhile, those awful neo-con stooges of Israel beg to differ - apparently not having received their daily memo from Tel-Aviv.

Justin Raimondo's head explodes. (When, if ever, will this guy come to terms with the fact that neo-cons are, by and large, pretty much what they say they are - i.e., relentless advocates of democratic universalism, even at Israel's expense?)

So what do you think? Do American conservatives have a dog in this fight?

Comments (79)

No. We don't have a dog in the fight. By that very token, Obama should not be acting like we do, swaggering about, issuing orders to Mubarak to go, go now, telling the Muslim Brotherhood that he "sees a role" for them in the new government (oh, joy), etc.


As the resident neo-con around here, I'll have to disagree partially with Lydia. Of course, I don't want Egypt run by the Muslim Brotherhood, but I think we can have a constructive role in helping avoid that outcome. Here is a great plan from neo-con central (FDD) that I would endorse written by Cliff May:


For more good neo-con ideas, you can also check the "Weekly Standard" blog by clicking my name.

I love Moldbug but I just don't think he's right about the supposed benefit of "stability" for the Arab world -- let's not forget that stability under Mubarak (and all the Arab dictatorships and ruling monarcharies) has meant a steady stream of anti-American propaganda, anti-Western propaganda (including anti-Christian and anti-Semitic stuff pumped out by the State-run presses and State-sanctioned imams), terrorism against America and our ally Israel, etc.

Our founding fathers told us to stay the heck out of the affairs of other countries. Our leaders, for over 100 years, have ignored that wise advice, and got us in the mess we're in now. I pray to God that in the near future we will get a new generation of leaders who will repudiate the internationalism that has driven us to the brink of doom and restore the wisdom of the founding fathers as our domestic and foreign policity.

I would like to say that it's none of our beeswax. On the other hand, it's undeniable that we have national interests in the Middle East, and will as long as we need oil to lubricate our economy. (And spare me, please, the "if we just drilled it all ourselves" stuff: this scenario requires isolating the U.S. entirely from every market for every commodity beyond our borders. It's not possible. And even if it is, it's a hypothetical for a different day.)

But the administration's tack is perhaps the worst possible approach. Why do we think that good things always happen when people vote? What is our cotton-picking obsession with ballot boxes? Voting itself is morally neutral. In Egypt, the results of free voting will probably be morally bad. There are very few interests or parties in Mid-East politics that are all pluses for the US to support (and when there was one that was close, in the Lebanese civil war, we sat by and did nothing for them). Maybe Mubarak is a thug; maybe his regime is corrupt and doesn't protect Christians. But Egypt has a lot of modern US-made weapons, and Mubarak's party has been insistent on not using them to blow up neighboring countries. That would be bad (not to mention all the issues involving the Canal, which still matters).

Obama has sent a clear message to people who cooperate with American policy: we don't have your back. In fact, we have so little respect for you that we won't even show signs of support for you when you make reasonable accommodations to riotous demands. Instead, we will walk you out into the street and throw you right under the bus. It would be nice if we didn't need cooperative governments in other parts of the world, but the fact is that we do. Now they just don't trust us as much.

If Egypt has a law that says the president gets elected in September, then that's when it should happen. What if 10,000 people showed up on the Mall and demanded Obama's resignation for a week? Would he leave office, or would he---quite rightly---insist that he was entitled to stay until his term ended? It's asinine for him to expect otherwise from other chief executives.

By the way, while it's understandable that one would perceive Auster as solidly "siding with Mubarak" from some of his posts, my perception is that he hasn't actually said that we should have done something active (what?) to help Mubarak stay in power. His biggest insight has been to show the recklessness of the "democracy our god" crowd; and there, I think he's right. It might be--I'd have to re-read all his posts to be more sure--that he really thinks Mubarak is our "dog in this fight" and that we should back him to the hilt, but I perceive him more as pointing out that we're _not_ "doing nothing" but are in fact backing the other side, and that certain factions in American politics seem quite blind to the problems with this.

Israel now faces its gravest danger ever. But grave as it is at the moment, the danger it faces tomorrow and in the months to come will grow even greater. By that I mean Israel faces the very real possibility of national extinction at the hands of its enemies, which soon will surround it on all sides. Given the foolish, even bizarre, predilections of our current administration, Israel will face that threat minus the dependable support of its oldest and best friend. Therefore it cannot afford to lose Egypt and the years of peace Egypt has helped to guarantee. Without Egypt as an ally, the flow of weapons of all sorts to Palestine surges radically upward. The same kind of threat rises also from Jordan because Jordan is changing in the same dangerous direction.

I think that, indeed, we do have a dog in this fight, one surrounded by hungry wolves. If those wolves succeed, where do you suppose they plan to dine next? There is simply no isolation from this danger. Look around you, friends. Our deadly enemies are everywhere. How far is it from your house to, say, Dearborn? In other words, you can't stay out of other countries' business because they are not staying out of ours. The infiltration by those who want us and out country dead is both national and global.

The best tactic at the moment is to help the Egyptian military to gain political power, so that the Camp David peace accord stays intact, and so that our best and closest ally in Egypt -- namely, the military -- can hold the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadis at bay, thereby keeping Israel more safe, and forestalling something utterly unspeakable.

Obama has sent a clear message to people who cooperate with American policy: we don't have your back.

Its a tradition of our foreign policy establsihment, and like many of his predecessors in similar circumstances, Obama is trying to cut our losses and get ahead of events he can't control. Muburak's demise was inevitable and his own army knows it.

The Bush "democratic revolution" in the Middle East continues. Just not according to plan.

We don't have a dog in this fight. I don't have anything against Israel, but I also don't have anything for it. Were I Jewish, I'd care, and that care would be justified, but I'm not, so, as far as foreign policy is concerned, I'm much more concerned about the future of Europe than I am Israel.

Setting aside whether the US should be involved in the Middle East at all and looking at the issue from current American objectives, it seems to be a lose / lose situation for the U.S. By abandoning Mubarak, the US is sending a message to its Middle Eastern allies that anti-Americanism might be in their long-term interest since America is an unreliable ally. By supporting democracy, more than likely anti-American governments will come to power. But, on the contrary, by supporting unpopular pro-American regimes throughout the Middle East, hatred of the U.S. will only increase.

I only have a rudimentary understanding of these affairs so that's my 2 cents, but it doesn't seem to be good for the U.S. anyway you look at it. A clever politician could spin the current events as a way gracefully to begin the process of exiting the Middle East. Our real concern should be hostile immigration into the West, not nation building in the Middle East. Of course, our current leadership (Obama or neocon) will continue with the same old until our skyrocketing deficit and inflation no longer make our idealistic foreign policy possible.

Americans make some of the worst empire builders on the planet. I'm no fan of empire in general, but at least at their height the British and Romans made a profit. The American "empire" of late has been but a great syphoning off of money from the West to the Third World - ideology trumping self-interested good sense.

Titus: "I would like to say that it's none of our beeswax. On the other hand, it's undeniable that we have national interests in the Middle East, and will as long as we need oil to lubricate our economy."

Many oil men, like Baker, were skeptical of democratic nation building in the Middle East, because they realized you can just as easily buy oil at market price from a dictatorial regime as you can from a democracy. Even if we exited from the Middle East entirely, we could still buy oil at market price as Middle Eastern countries must still compete against their competitors:


Also, putting all ideology aside, although there has long been latent (and not so latent) anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East, a more immediate cause for the unrest in Muslim countries is food prices:


And of course, this may be related to the growing inflation of the U.S. dollar:

"[Larry] Kudlow notes that the Federal Reserve's dollar inflation may be to blame for record food prices in the Middle East, and subsequent region-wide calls for revolution, because commodities are priced in dollars. In other words, the U.S. dollar is presently the world's reserve currency, so when an Egyptian wants to import a global commodity like wheat, he or she would first buy dollars with local currency, and then use the dollars to buy the commodity. This is how the policies of the Federal Reserve bank significantly affect the entire world.

For over two years now, the Federal Reserve has been pumping record amounts of dollars into the global economy, printing them up (or these days simply adding zeroes to electronic bank accounts) to purchase IOUs from banks and governments around the world. Over the last decade, the growth in the supply of dollars has been astronomical in scope, pushing up the price of gasoline, raw building materials, and food commodities like milk, wheat, and eggs. The reasoning behind this policy of radical dollar inflation (and subsequent dollar devaluation) is done in secret by unelected bureaucrats at the Federal Reserve Bank."


If this problem comes to the US, then what's going on in Egypt will be of little importance. Our fighting dogs will have more immediate concerns.

On an only tangentially related note, to get a sense of how disorienting the riots could be for a Westerner, check out the population density of Cairo: 82,000 people per square mile --- and very dirty too!


Sorry about the numerous back-to-back posts -- but it IS an open thread :)

We have been straining for ever so long trying to bring stability while our rivals stir up trouble. Perhaps we should reverse the situation on our ascendant rivals, that they will have to squander their own billions to save the world.

There is but one question that could give both Israel and the West cover for decades, perhaps centuries, to allow for the inevitable collapse and rebuilding period necessary.

"You have proven to be too committed to be dominated by the United States. Therefore, of you Islamic Nations, who shall take up the Caliphate?"

Yes, it will inevitably lead to a raging bloodbath of tribalism and nationalism mixed with modern weaponry, not unlike Europe's wars, but then at least the weapons are not continually brandished at helpless dhminni.

My fondest wish is that one year ago Mubarak publicly had demanded that Barack either produce his COLB or resign.

I do think that Mr. Spencer, at Alt. Right, was on to something by laying at the feet of Helicopter Ben Bernanke much of the blame for this mess.


As for Mr. Auster's tiresome hate-habit of calling everyone an antisemite if they don't support Israel, it has gone way beyond any rationality. He sounds flat out insane.

America was so wise to choose to support the imposition of a teeny-weeny island of a Jewish State in the midst of an ocean of Arabia (people and land) and the fact that the teeny-weeny Island had to be stolen from it rightful possessors only made our foreign policy that much more enlightened.

Gee, why is it that Arabs hate us? Hmmmmm

the fact that the teeny-weeny Island had to be stolen from it rightful possessors

Vermont, I agree with almost everything you said, except this comment. The facts on the ground in Palestine and Jerusalem in the period from 1880 to 1948 definitely do not support a theory that the Jews "took" Palestine away from the Arabs in any sense that holds water. After they immigrated in droves, purchased owned property and made something of uninhabited land, they ended up consolidating control of the governance after being forced into it by armed marauding by bands of Arabs - supported by neighboring potentates - attacking Jews without provocation. The colonial British mainly wrung their hands while the Jews were being attacked. The Jews had virtually zero help from Europeans until the last period in 1948 when then were close to finished with gaining control anyway.

I don't call that "stealing" Israel from its rightful possessors.

Oh, Tony, please don't...

It's most, most unfortunate that this thread has provided another opportunity for VC to ride his anti-Israel hobby horse. The whole thread will end up being devoted to that and to increasingly strongly worded (shall we say) comments on his part in the same vein and in (if you take my drift) related veins if he's answered. Do we want that? As you know, people with that type of hobby horse are not typically amenable to factual refutation.

But Egypt has a lot of modern US-made weapons, and Mubarak's party has been insistent on not using them to blow up neighboring countries.

Correction: Egypt has a lot of the US-made weapons that have been dumbed down for the "league of suckers" otherwise known as the Islamic states that buy our weapons with the hope that they are getting something comparable to what is fielded by the Pentagon. The Israelis buy our stuff too, but unlike the league of suckers, they actually have the engineering talent (as witnessed by the fact that Intel actually does a lot of its design in Israel now) to bring them to parity with ours.

Vermont Crank,

Let me put this as delicately as I can: you are an anti-Semite.

However, the jury's still out on whether or not you are an irredeemable kook. So in order that we may know one way or the other, please answer the following question:

Was 9/11 an inside job?

Thank you.

Dear Lydia. Every single fact I write about is documented but they are not documented in any source you appear to have read but that does not make them any the less factual.

Dear Tony, there are many sources for what I reference. This morning, I am using "The Palestine Diary 1945-1948 United States, United Nations Intervention, Third Edition by Robert John/Sami Hadawi." (Foreword by Arnold J. Toynbee)

Hobby Horse is a derisive term applied to anyone who looks at the history of Israel with open eyes.

One is not said to be riding a Hobby Horse if one is researching the history of Christianity or if one is researching the Old Testament or one is researching the History of Jefferson Davis (well, ok, that too is non-PC).

No, it is only in connection with Israel, its history, its economy, its status, its foreign policy, its law of return, its policy of ethnic cleansing, its repeated terrorism, its forswearing of the use of + in math books because it looks like a Cross,etc that a Christian will be denounced as an antisemite or as having an unhealthy obsession and to me those charges reveal much more about the individuals making the charge than the one interested in learning about Israel from sources unapproved of by Zionists and those who succor them.

There is a lot of fear in folks about the propriety of writing about Israel and its history. There are many, many blackened reputations - and ruined careers - as a result of writing facts about Jews and Israel and the fastest race in the world is one in which Christians vie with one another to be the first to denounce as antisemitic the man who dares question Israel.

St John has some explanatory words about that ancient fear in his Gospel; Fear of The Jews.

Dear George. Because you made the charge, please explain to all what you mean by antisemite.

Please post one word (feel free to use more than one)of mine that expresses hatred of Jews as a race.

Joe Sobran was right when he wrote that antisemitism used to mean one who hated Jews but now it has come to mean one whom Jews hate.

In my military service, I've worked with the Israelis countless times, and I think that we've gained a lot from that alliance.

However, one of the most helpful things we can do is to stop basing our policy toward Israel on dispensational premillenialism. The modern state of Israel isn't Biblical Israel, and God will not apportion blessings or curses on the US based on our policy toward that state any differently than He will on our policy toward Upper Volta.

Upper Volta.

Every time I read that country's name, I reflexively remember the name of its Capital, Ouagadougou.

Is that a great name or what?

No, VC, the phrase "hobby horse" has to do with dragging things in and going on and on about them. If you agreed with me about something, VC--I dunno, say, the evils of gender-neutral language--and if you dragged it in on all possible and impossible occasions, including threads on Egypt, and went on and on about it and wouldn't shut up, that would be a hobby horse. Even if I agreed with you, which in this case I don't, but that is _not_ an invitation to a debate.

The poor horse. It would be great if you could give it a rest.

Dear George. Because you made the charge, please explain to all what you mean by antisemite.

Well, let’s take a look-see at something you wrote:

No, it is only in connection with Israel, its history, its economy, its status, its foreign policy, its law of return, its policy of ethnic cleansing. . .

Its policy of ethnic cleansing? What ethnic cleansing? See, this is what I’m talking about: you people have completely detached yourselves from reality. Israel does not practice ethnic cleansing, and the one political party that advocated ethnic cleansing, the Kach Party, was outlawed by Israel. The fact that you would make such a baseless, ridiculous charge is alone sufficient to prove yourself an anti-Semite.

Oh, but maybe you'll come back and say, "What about all those Arabs that were displaced during the war in 1948? That's what I mean by ethnic cleansing." This is just more anti-Semite nonsense; but I'll forebear from putting words in your mouth until you actually say them.

Btw, Joe Sobran utterly disgraced himself over the Jews. And it wasn't the Jews who caused his fall; it was Joe Sobran.

But what I really want to know, VC, is was 9/11 and inside job? Don't forget to answer that one.

Dear Lydia. As is easily seen, I was not the first on this thread to write about Israel.

I understand we disagree on Israel but I have only one Hobby Horse, The Oakland Raiders, although I do have many things that interest me, not excluding Israel and how our support for it has been dragging us down and making us an enemy of a population much larger, with far more resources, and with far less animus directed against Our Lord and Saviour.

I'd just as soon ditch all foreign aid to the ME and form a Northern Alliance with Russia, and others, as Serge Trifkovic wisely advocates.

Now why is it we Christians have to hate a Country with scores of millions of Christians, Russia, but we are supposed to publicly pledge fealty to a country filled with folks who specifically reject He for whom the entire Universe was created?


Let them kill each other in the ME until they get sick of it and make their own peace and keep America out of it. (I think that is Dr. Trifkovic's position also)

But, no, we Americans are stuck on stupid backing Israel and fielding POTUS Candidates who are required to bow and scrape before AIPAC before they are considered electable.

It is maddening. I understand Jewish tribal loyalty but why are Christians expected to identify with them and to back them - those who reject Our Lord and Saviour?

It makes no sense of any level that I can see.

Its policy of ethnic cleansing? What ethnic cleansing? See, this is what I’m talking about: you people have completely detached yourselves from reality. Israel does not practice ethnic cleansing, and the one political party that advocated ethnic cleansing, the Kach Party, was outlawed by Israel. The fact that you would make such a baseless, ridiculous charge is alone sufficient to prove yourself an anti-Semite.

I asked what you meant by antisemitism and by that label I see you mean one who criticises the country of Israel is an antisemite.

Try and tighten-up the definition just a tad so I will know what you mean by the word antisemitism. As it now stands, I think its use for you is as a label to be applied to one who disagrees with your personal opinion about Israel and its actions

Normally I'm a pretty peaceloving guy, but I just wish we could say to the Jihadists, "Listen, you clowns. You've got 30 days to knock off all this jihad crap, or we turn Mecca into talcum powder."

Okay, VC, could we talk about the Oakland Raiders, then? Instead?

Sir John Bagot Glubb, Commander of The Arab League, has described a significant meeting...The British officer asked the Jewish official, "whether or the new Jewish state would not have many internal problems, in view fo the fact that the Arab inhabitants of the Jewish State would be equal in number to the Jews."

Oh, no, replied the Jewish officer. That will be fixed. A few calculated massacres will soon be rid of them."

The speaker was not a terrorist - he was a respectable moderate Jewish official, employed in the mandatory government."

...in 1948, The NY Times editorialised, "It was the Jewish Policy to encourage the Arabs to quit their homes and they used psychological warfare extensively in urging them to do so. Later, as the war went on, they ejected those Arabs who clung to their villages..The refugees were in fact helped on their way by the occasional massacre - not of very many at a time, but just enough to keep them running. Others were encouraged to move by blows or by indecent acts."

The British Colonial and Foreign Offices issued a joint statement reviewing the Mandate since 1920 and admitting failure. Among the reasons - "Eighty-four thousand troops who secured no comfort from the3 Jewish community, had proved insufficient to maintain law and order in the face of terrorism by Jewish forces equipped with all the weapons of modern infantrymen."

Palestine Diary 1945-1948 by Robert John/Sami Hadawi

Of course there are many many many similar citations of ethnic cleansing which are sourced but, don't you know, the mere mention of sourced material which does not pay obeisance to Zionist Agitprop is proof-positive of antisemitism

As for Mr. Auster's tiresome hate-habit of calling everyone an antisemite if they don't support Israel, it has gone way beyond any rationality. He sounds flat out insane.

He would sound insane if this characterization were accurate. But it isn't.

Lydia LOL you are a nice woman.

I am intentionally dialing-back my rhetorical flourishes which deprives me of a lot of fun, so, that must also be borne in mind :)

I half expect to be charged as an antisemite because I am not a Fan of the NE Patriots because they have a Jewish wide-receiver, Julian Edlemann(sp>),whom Dan LeBatard jokingly refers to as "the greatest Jewish wide-receiver in NFL History."

I said "instead." I might have known you'd find some way to drag that angle into it, VC.

Look, since you won't pipe down, let's try this: Go back to the main post. Read it again. Then tell us whether you think America should (or should have)

a) backed Mubarak

b) backed the protesters

c) done nothing (really nothing) to support either side.

See if you can manage to do this without once using either the "I" word or the "J" word.

That would be unambiguously on-topic.

Back to the original question, before Vermont Crank hijacked the thread: yes, American conservatives do have a dog in this fight. That most definitely includes anti-interventionist conservatives. One of the smartest and most grown-up of those conservatives, Daniel Larison, explained it better than I could have. I'll try to summarize.

Basically, the US is involved in the Middle East whether that's a good thing or not. If an Islamist or otherwise more "democratic" Egypt were to wage a low-intensity war against Israel, probably by nonstate proxies - not a very far-fetched scenario - that would drag the US much more tightly into the regional conflict. That's one reason Larison supports the stability of the current regime in Egypt and supports US efforts to preserve that regime. Another reason is his Burkean skepticism of revolutions.

Larison is one of the few right-wing noninterventionists I know of who actually recommends practical, concrete actions towards a humane-as-possible disengagement by the US. It's very easy to say, "Disengage!", or "a republic, not an empire!", but noninterventionist slogans are pretty useless at the level of concrete policy, unless your attitude is après nous, le déluge. I don't always agree with Larison on Middle East issues, but I think his commentary on Egypt has been superb. I recommend checking out his Eunomia blog.

P.S. I don't think I paraphrased Larison accurately above. He was more concerned, or at least as concerned, about a "pre-emptive" Israeli strike on Egypt as a result of future Egyptian aid in arming the terrorist groups in Gaza. I forgot that angle because I see it as pretty unlikely. My summary is probably really as much my view as Larison's. Again, check out Larison's blog to see what he really said.

Try and tighten-up the definition just a tad so I will know what you mean by the word antisemitism.

So, the anti-Semite wants a definition of anti-Semitism. Okay, I think we can oblige.

Anti-Semitism: The irrational and unhinged-from-reality hatred, fear, and suspicion of the Jews.

How’s that?

Now I’ve answered your question, would you please answer mine, to wit, was 9/11 an inside job?

Dear Lydia. I have to be polite and answer Mr. R's question.

Now that you have defined it, please post my words that, at least in your mind, prove I am an antisemite.

You failed miserably in your first attempt.

VC, one problem is that the intensity of your rhetoric tends to preclude the possibility of calm disagreement. It cannot be that some of us have investigated the matter and come to different conclusions than you. It must be, rather, that we've been duped and lied to. That sort of position makes reasoned discourse difficult.

For your interest, my first serious study of the Israeli-Arab conflict came at Wake Forest under the tutelage of a professor named Michael Gorkin, who has published several well-received books based on his time living with a Palestinian family on the West Bank. Here is perhaps his best book: http://www.amazon.com/Days-Honey-Onion-Palestinian-Family/dp/0520081862/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_3

Prof. Gorkin did not give us Israeli propoganda, I assure you.

On Egypt, despite my sympathy for noninventionism, it does seem clear that there is a solid faction of Egyptian liberals whose goal is liberal democracy. One hopes they are not coopted by Jihadists or some other violent faction. How the US can best prevent this is not at all clear to me.

Dear Lydia. OK, I'll try me bestest.

America should stay the hell out of Egypt's affairs.

Now, praise me for being a good boy :)

Dear Lydia. And please feel free to apologise at any time because this thread, in Mr. Burton's introduction, cites israel;

Three times.

Dear Mr. Cella. I hear ya. My voice is to communication what Chiaroscuro is to art.

I know you are right that a more nuanced approach would likely generate more reasonable responses rather that the typical "you are an antisemite" response but even arguments carefully circumscribed and delivered in sotto voce lyrics in the midst of a waltz of a paragraph gets that response if the lyrics are seen as opposed to Israel and its political-expansionist project.

That is the nature of the beast to which we have attached ourselves.

But, if it is any consolation, I have things to do so I will be posting but one more response to Mr. R and that is it for today.

Anti-Semitism: The irrational and unhinged-from-reality hatred, fear, and suspicion of the Jews.

How’s that?

Now I’ve answered your question, would you please answer mine, to wit, was 9/11 an inside job?

Dear George R. You issued a nasty, rash, and hateful bit of calumny against me by calling me an antisemite which is a sin against the Eighth Commandment.

That is a sin which has no punishment attached to it in this world; in fact, it is a sin that is wildly and widely engaged in by all manner of putative Christians; and it is the favorite sin of the Neo-Con nuts at Free Republic.

Issuing the antisemitic calumny against a Christian is such an accepted habit in this country that not one, not one, individual in here stopped to correct you or to ask you where was your proof of such a calumny that damages the reputation of another; and nobody asked you to tone-down your rhetoric.

It is worth observing that all hell breaks-loose if one criticises Israel or Jews but let a Christian calumniate a Christian and it seems as if nobody cares, certainly not a Christian.

That sort of goes to prove as correct my observation that there is Far more Fear of the Jews amongst Christians than there is Fear of The Lord.

I mean, there is hell to pay in criticising Israel, just ask Mr. Joseph Sobran and his forever-blackened reputation.

Because my skin is thicker than Hilary's butt, it does not hurt me to be called that silly political label, but, you might want to think about that calumny and repudiate it before you meet face-to-face with Jesus at your Private,particular Judgment.

As for me to responding to any of your questions after your calumny - first try and ask yourself what right you have to ask questions of me after your have calumniated me.

Just how dumb, passive,supine,and effeminate do you think I am?

Listen to what an Israeli Jew, a former minister, says about use of that word


Now that you have defined it, please post my words that, at least in your mind, prove I am an antisemite.

I’m through answering your questions, VC, seeing that you refuse to answer mine, which I’ve asked three times. Besides, I’ve already pointed out that you have accused Israel of a “policy of ethnic cleansing,” which is nothing but a patent slander. Now why would you tell such a lie, if you weren’t an anti-Semite? It’s possible, I suppose, that you’re lying for some other reason, but the most plausible explanation, of course, is that you’re an anti-Semite.

Furthermore, I know you like to pretend you’re a Christian, so you might want to consider this: it’s a grave sin to slander anyone -- even the Jews.

Lastly, you keep suggesting that Joe Sobran reputation was ruined by the machinations of Jewish power. This is ridiculous. Joe Sobran's reputation was ruined by Joe Sobran, who, being fully capable of remaining a serious and influential intellectual, chose to play the part of a braying jackass instead.

Please, Steve, isn't it obvious that VC has made further discussion with his presence (at least in this thread) pointless? Please act.

VC - I can well understand why George R. might get your hackles up (he wants me outta here too, after all) - but I must admit I'd like to know your answer to his question: "was 9/11 an inside job?" Surely that's an easy enough question to answer?

Tony - no, it isn't obvious to me that VC "has made further discussion...in this thread..pointless." In fact, he seems to have *sparked* most of the discussion!

FWIW, I think you got the better of him, way up above, in your 9:50 a.m. reply to his 9:27 post, before Lydia intervened.

But you must understand - I'm not into banning people. Idiots & trolls, sure. But VC is neither.

Steve, whatever. Most of discussion he generated wasn't about Egypt or what we should do there (if anything). Ciao.

So if a million or so people march on Washington, will Obama resign?

According to Obama, Gibbs, Congress and the government media complex, this is the required reaction to such demonstrations!

This exchange is hilarious:


Gottfried: I believe X

Auster: No, you don't believe X because I say you don't believe X!

From the article referenced by Jeff Singer: "The reason people are going to the streets and making revolution is their desire not to live in a fear society," Mr. Sharansky says.

Perhaps, but isn't a more plausible immediate cause the soaring food prices?


Wow, somebody posted a comment about Egypt!

Jeff, I clicked on your WSJ link and then stopped reading when I saw who the article was about. Scharansky is an Israeli, but he does not represent anyone but himself in Israeli government or society, where neoconservatism is nonexistent. His views on democracy have never been influential or even relevant in Israel; they were never taken seriously, and for good reason. (Prime Minister Sharon told him frankly that his book didn't apply to the Middle East.) In contrast, his book apparently had a strong influence on Bush's US foreign policy. The salient fact about Scharansky is not that he's an Israeli but that he's an American-oriented neoconservative.

I guess I've finally arrived at blissful ignorance. The first I heard of rioting in Egypt is when I heard about their Internet going dark. Can I really do anything except pray for peace, justice, and safety for her people? Can any of us?

The Chickeb

"was 9/11 an inside job?"

Dear Mr. Burton. No.

Now, there is plenty of evidence that Mossad knew about the plan to attack the WTC and they trailed the Hijackers all over the country and Carl Cameron had a series of reports on FOX News detailing that but those reports were dropped down the memory hole


Interestingly, my Mother-in-law lives seven miles away from the apartment that Mohammed Atta lived in, right across the street form the Venice Airport (Florida)where he took flying lessons and a woman I worked with at JP Morgan was interviewed by The FBI because she was in a bar on Palm Beach the same night that the Bar's Security Cameras caught Mo Atta on tape knocking-back some see-throughs.

(Mohamed Atta was living across from the Venice Airport at the Sandpiper Apartments during the Spring of 2001, with Amanda Keller, a pink-haired American stripper)

Of course we Americans will be the last to know the full story of what happened on 911 - just like historians, thanks to Bibi's recent decision...


will never know the truth about how Israel was founded in terror and had a policy of ethnic-cleansing but, no, I don't think 911 was an inside job.

I think it much more rational to think 911 happened because America is fat, dumb, and happy and has lousy intelligence - an intelligence system so crappy it didn't predict the collapse of Russia or the turmoil in Egypt, but, that incompetence is routinely rewarded - falling upward, I guess - and nobody is ever fired.

BTW, we have the hugest Defense Budget that has ever existed in the history of mankind -larger than the combined defense budgets of the next 8 or nine largest countries (this is my memory, I could be wrong)- and what do we have to show for it?

We are constantly taking actions that blow-up in our face and we suffered the 911 attacks and nobody got fired. Nobody.

C'est la vie

Oh, and one last tangential thought in reference to Egypt. Commentators worry that the Muslim Brotherhood will take-over and institute Sharia Law.

Yeah, who the hell are they to institute Sharia Law ? That is our job.

Dubya,the great,(PBUH), changed Iraq from a secular state to one that has a Constitution anchored in Sharia Law; and Afghanistan also has a new Constitution anchored in Sharia Law thanks to America spreading democracy.

Yep, America did that, thank you very much

So, as far as American commentators are concerned, creating States based on Sharai Law is our job - although we like to veil that truth by calling it spreading Democracy.

The US has no interest at stake. Let Egypt decide what to do about itself. Democracy in Egypt will almost certainly bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power. Well, let it. America can no longer afford to run the world, whatever the consequences may be.

Now would be a good time to cut off the payments that we are making to Egypt not to attack Israel; Israel can pay its own tribute.

FWIW, I think you got the better of him, way up above, in your 9:50 a.m. reply to his 9:27 post, before Lydia intervened.

Dear Mr. Burton. I beg your indulgence here as I make a belated response. Because I could not find a particular Bookmark that I desired to use to respond to Tony, today I had to go and do a search for that formerly-bookmarked site that documents quite a different history of Palestine than the propaganda we have been sold and told to accept as Americans.

Despite the fact I am an autodidact whose opinions are outside of the parameters of what certain members of the establishment consider permissible polemics, I think readers may find the site of interest and can use it, among other sources, to make-up their own minds.



We have both a moral and a political obligation to aid our friends and to resist large scale evil. Israel's very existence, and along with it the lives of millions of its citizens, are are stake. If you think it's not in our interest to resist evil on that scale, you need to think again. We have treaty obligations to keep. In a world where America does not keep its word or defend its friends, our deadly enemies are emboldened, our safety is compromised, and lives are lost.

MB: "Israel's very existence, and along with it the lives of millions of its citizens, are are stake."

Perhaps, perhaps not. Either way, Israel is not my country and they're not my people. Were I Jewish, I'd care, but I'm not, so I don't. I don't have anything against Israelis, but I don't have anything for them either. I'm much more concerned about the survival of Europe and those nations of the European Diaspora.


Your craven dismissal of the lives of millions of human beings and of our obligations to them does not rise even to the level of barbarism.

Michael Bauman,

Let's engage in a little thought experiment. Assume, for the sake of argument, that Israel and Sweden have the same population (we'll say 8 million). Now, assume that a madmen wire both countries with explosives, capable of destroying both countries and everyone within. Their leader then holds a gun to your head and says you must choose: Should Sweden or Israel be destroyed? Which would you choose?

For me, it would be a no brainer. Although I wish Israel no harm and have no formal ties to Sweden, I'd choose to save Sweden simply because my ancestral ties are European (mostly English) and I'm pro-Western.

What about you?

Add to the thought experiment the caveat that if you refuse to choose a country, the madman will destroy both.

We'll call this thought experiment the Pro-Western or Pro-Israel Litmus Test.

Again, I'm not an Israel hater. If I had to choose between Israel and some Muslim countries, I'd perhaps choose Israel. But, given that I'm of the European Diaspora, not the Jewish Diaspora, Israel ranks quite low on my list of concerns. (I'm actually even more concerned about Russia than I am Israel.)

Well, gee - here I thought the events of the last day or so in Egypt were worthy of comment: Mubarak looks like hanging on, Obama looks weak and foolish, etc.

Oh, well. Love her or hate her, Israel is the "eternally fresh and captivating" theme of all themes, I guess. Once she's brought up, all else is forgotten, and it's off to the races.

VC: thanks for your link. I found this page particularly amusing. Compare this (scroll way down).

In a perverse (?) sort of way, I'm glad Obama didn't get away with uttering an imperial, "Go, instantly!" to Mubarak. Who the dickens does he think he is?

Your hypothetical choice has nothing to do with contemporary events. It's not that either Israel dies or some other country does. It is that if Egypt is lost as an ally in peace, Israel might die. Therefore, we must do what we can to keep Egypt in the hands of those who will maintain peace with Israel. At this point, that seems to be the Egyptian military, with whom, happily, we have the most influence.


But in the confines of the hypothetical, which would you choose?

Steve, if not for Israel there would be no policy towards Egypt and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Why pretend?

Michael, Israel is going to have to take care of itself sooner or later, and with how bankrupt America is I would bet on sooner. We may as well take advantage of the regime change to ease the transition. If Israel is to survive, it will have to find some way of getting along with its neighbors. If it cannot, then it will not survive. This is the way of the world and there is no sense in trying to deny it.

But in the confines of the hypothetical, which would you choose?

The "confines" of such hypotheticals are rarely what their creators suppose, and are mostly evil in intent: to justify malice against their chosen target.

if you refuse to choose a country, the madman will destroy both.

Then let him. It is he who is doing the destroying, not I.

Madmen, btw, are notorious for being trustworthy.

America has spent far too much money and lost far too many lives establishing Muslim Supremacy and Sharia Law in Iraq and Afghanistan and so it looks like the Muslims will have to establish their own Supremacy and Sharia Law in Egypt.

As for poor lil' Israel and its 200+ Nukes, if they have to deal with their neighbors on their own and make peace with them that will leave them less time to attack unarmed America Ships (Liberty) or send their spies, Mossad, over here to trail terrorist-hijackers and not inform us of what'n'hell is going on.

Said otherwise, America needed Israel like an insane man needs to marry an psychotic woman.

Everyone can see the result of this crazy coupling, A Foreign Policy Folie a deux


I just want to go on record as saying I had no idea that there was any alternate/contested "facts" concerning the founding of the State of Israel or that Mossad was tracking the 9/11 hijackers. It is great to learn something new from reliable commenters here at W4. Keep up the great work and please don't stop getting all your facts from the internet -- I wouldn't want you to pick up a real work of historical scholarship that looks at all the sources in Hebrew, English (and to a limited extend Arabic) and attempts to carefully weigh the evidence before coming to any conclusions. You have become an expert on these matters through a careful selection of unbiased internet websites. I'm glad you pointed us in the right direction!

Dear Mr. Singer. I am happy to have been a service to you.

I can only surmise from what you write, and more importantly from what you don't write, that you are sympatico with the Zionist Propaganda that passes for the official accepted history of the establishment of Israel.

And because it is rather difficult to put my copy of "The Palestine Diary" or "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History" online in here, I thought it useful to post that link; a link which includes access to an entire book about the objective statistics existing in Palestine prior to the Terrorism against and the ethnic-cleansing of the Native population of Palestine by the Zionist Jews.

You and your ilk bear a lot of responsibility for the rise of what are considered scandalous websites because you and your ilk are both fey and fearful when it comes to the Jewish control of the media and what it could do to you and your ilk if you were to routinely write openly of the contested history and facts about how Israel came to be established in Palestine ans what it has done since its establishment there.

And so you keep your knowledge about these matters close to the vest and you keep silent about these matters and you only obliquely reference them in a sarcastic put-down of one of your commentators.

I suspect you know me well enough to know that I consider your sarcasm weak,ineffectual, and a confession you are craven.

I mean, what is there to fear from some insignificant man born in Vermont? He can be made sport of, demeaned, and held-up to ridicule.

But, Fear of The Jews is a very real thing, isn't it? Write routinely and honestly about the disputed facts of the establishment of the State of Israel in Palestine and that could cost you your reputation, and maybe your source of livelihood.

The more Christian Catholic men discover what a fetid and poisonous pool of lies Zionist Propaganda is -(The Jews made the deserts bloom and prior to their arrival all was bleak and desolate; The HUGE Arab Armies were defeated by the tiny and plucky Jewish Army, the Jews are our elder brothers, etc etc) the more likely those Christian Catholic men are to mock and despise those who knew the truth and kept silent out of fear.

You think this sort of post mocks me but I see it as an unintended confession of just how substantial is the quaking and carking in your intellect. That is, I am a convenient and safe target that allows you to dissipate your cognitive dissonance arising from both knowing the truth and the fear of speaking about the truth openly.

C'est la vie.

Nothing has changed in 2000 years. The Jews put Christ to death, they attack and persecute Christians, and they are the enemies of mankind.

The putative respectable websites could, routinely, address the contentious and captious issues involved with Israel - from its founding to its actions in the ME and, especially, in America - but few websites do that.

I think if is because of Fear of The Jews, but, I am not impeccable.

But there is no denying there is fear and loathing about discussing Israel and The Jews and so when places like Occidental Observer experience an increase in traffic, they have folks like you to thank for the spike in interest.

Believe it or not, there are more than a few Christian Catholics who do not think that Israel is God and AIPAC is its Prophet and if it were put to a vote of an informed American public then Foreign Aid to that crappy country would cease.

So, for me at least, when I ask "Cui bono" when it comes to the matter of keeping Americans ignorant about the truth about Israel, the answer is obvious, Israel.

But, for you and your ilk, I am the problem.

Now, assume that a madmen wire both countries with explosives, capable of destroying both countries and everyone within. Their leader then holds a gun to your head and says you must choose: Should Sweden or Israel be destroyed? Which would you choose?

Oh, heck, I'd choose the salad. Everyone knows that making Swiss Steak isn't kosher.

The Chicken

Vermont Crank will no longer be joining us.

He had been given numerous warnings about this topic, and frankly a lot more leash than some of our trusted contributors were comfortable with. We have only banned commenters on rare occasions, but unapologetic anti-Semitism ("Jews are the enemies of mankind") is one thing we will not tolerate.

Too bad, but it's his own fault. He had plenty of good things to say and in fact could be quite eloquent on other topics but could not let this one go, alas, nor control his rhetoric when he wrote on it.

I have no idea what I meant by the Swiss Steak remark. I was trying to indicate that it is a silly game. The only way to win is not to play (with apologies to the movie (War Games)).

As for VC, truly sad. I appreciated his time on the blog and wish him well. Perhaps we will meet, again on the Internet on a less sensitive topic.

The Chicken

Although I agree we should not be doing anything overtly, we should be doing a great deal covertly. We should be preparing Delta Force to go in and take out any Islamic regime, even if this means transferring troops from Iran and Afghanistan, where we seem to have reached a brick wall anyway. The main thing is that Islamic regimes must be attacked when they begin. Impractical? I suppose if one's perspective is short, then yes. But this fight began in 700 A.D., and it is not going away based on kind thoughts. The containment, at a minimum, of Islam is the most immediate goal, and its battering down to insignifigance is the long term goal.


We should be preparing Delta Force to go in and take out any Islamic regime, even if this means transferring troops from Iran and Afghanistan, where we seem to have reached a brick wall anyway.

The world cries out for satire and Mr. Henri fresh from a Chuck Norris - Vin Diesel Film Festival delivers! Bravo.

I think we need to do what is the most difficult thing for any American to do - nothing. Stay out of it. Other than publicly implore that no violence be implemented, let the Egyptians sort this out for themselves. We seem to be the ADHD nation (I am curious how our rate of ADHD compares to other nations).

I think it is _probably_ right that we should stay out of it. While we have an interest in a stable and America-friendly Egypt, that interest is limited. Also, we have no serious and worthwhile platform from which to move anything in the direction of "stable and America-friendly." Finally, the probability of back-lash from any involvement by us is very significant.

Sure, it would be better in the long run if Egypt were to adopt a pro-democracy, pro-Western, pro-religious freedom culture and government. But the chance of anything we do could leading to such a result is zilch. Short of that kind of success, stable and America-friendly is about the best we can hope for, but there is nothing in our option package that will appreciably improve the odds of that either. Our best bet is to be a good friend and neighbor - to the Egyptian people, not the Egyptian government (that should have been our standard all along, whatever the government. Governments come and go.) In this case, being a good neighbor seems to be keeping our nose out from where it is not wanted.

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.