walter russell mead peter berger lilia shevtsova adam garfinkle andrew a. michta
© Getty Images
Published on: December 28, 2013
a wild conspiracy
Jon Stewart, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and the Zionist Takeover of Egypt

Anti-Semitism is the sign of profound mental and social failure — and a harbinger of more failures and errors to come.

When Jon Stewart visited Egypt in the summer, he made an appearance on “Al Bernameg,” a (suspended) satirical show sometimes compared to Stewart’s own “The Daily Show.” He dropped a joke early in the gig when Bassem Yousseff, the host of the show, asked him what he was doing with his time (Stewart was on sabbatical): “As you know, my people like to wander in the desert. It’s been two weeks, I’ve got 50 weeks and 38 years left.”

Nothing alarming, right? Well, earlier this month, Egyptian writer Amr Ammar, in a remarkable leap into the realm of tinfoil hatted hate thought, took the joke as an effort by American leaders like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Stewart to conquer Egypt. The Middle East Media Research Institute translated Ammar’s comments on Tahrir TV:

If you recall, when Jon Stewart visited here in Egypt, he was a guest on Bassem Youssef’s show. Note what Jon Stewart said as a joke. He said: ‘I am sorry I am late. I wandered in the desert, but now I’ve found my homeland.’ That’s what he said word for word — a Jew who wandered in the desert, but, thank God, found his homeland. This man says, in the heart of Egypt and on an Egyptian media outlet, that Egypt belongs to them, that it is his homeland.

First of all, that’s not what Stewart said, not even close. Second of all, it’s worth underlining the point, as Jeff Goldberg hints at over at Bloomberg, that the most important thing to understand about the heated, over the top (or under the bottom) conspiracy rhetoric so prevalent in Egypt and elsewhere in the region isn’t the evil and hatred behind it, sad as that is. Rather, what the prevalence of this kind of crazy thinking tells us is that Egypt isn’t going to get better soon. Anti-Semitism, attributing global events to the machinations of an all-conquering Jewish conspiracy, is the sign of profound mental and social failure—and a harbinger of more failures and errors to come.

The prevalence of delusional conspiracy thinking at all levels of Egyptian intellectual and political life is a “tell” that points to important limits on Egypt’s potential for political, social and economic progress. Societies in thrall to this kind of darkness are unlikely to develop the vigorous, forward looking and competent civil societies that can promote true democracy. Societies whose intellectual leaders cannot understand how power works in the modern world are unlikely to adopt policies that bring rapid economic progress. Given the power of these ideas among prominent Muslim Brotherhood officials and leaders, it should have been clear to the Obama administration that whatever it was observing in Egypt, it was unlikely to be a “transition to democracy.” At best, the Egyptian revolution was always likely to be an interregnum between despotisms; at worst there is still a chance (hopefully small) that the country could fall into the kind of chaos and violence that has become much too common across the Middle East.

Rabid anti-Semitism coupled with an addiction to implausible conspiracy theories is a very strong predictor of national doom; Nazi Germany isn’t the only country to have followed these dark stars to the graveyard of history. Many liberal minded Americans (though loathing both anti-Semitism and chowderheaded conspiracy thinking themselves) don’t like to look this truth in the eye.  It leads to some very uncomfortable reflections about the potential for democracy in many countries beyond Egypt, and casts a dark shadow over the prospects for the development of a stable and prosperous Palestinian state. It suggests that there are narrow limits on what we can expect from diplomacy with Iran.

Two American administrations in a row have seen their Middle East policies come crashing down because they ignored the unpleasant implications of the unhealthy thought climate so prevalent in so much of the region. President Bush and President Obama, dissimilar as they are in so many of their regional policies, shared a naive optimism about the prospects for quick transitions to democracy in the Middle East. In both cases that optimism led to unwise policy choices that made both US interests and values harder to protect. In the Bush years, those who raised questions about Iraq’s and the Arab world’s readiness for democracy were denounced as racists; in the age of Obama they are called Occidentalists or sometimes Islamophobes.

Not everybody in the region is caught up in the kind of thinking behind Mr. Ammar’s clownish pronouncements, and it is certainly true that Israeli actions sometimes contribute to an emotional climate that makes crazy talk appealing to minds that otherwise might be ready to take a more sensible view. But the grim reality remains: as long as feverish conspiracy thinking dominates the world views of so many regional social, cultural and political actors, civil society will be weak and both democracy and prosperity will prove elusive.

The whiggish optimism of American culture rebels at such thoughts, but the Middle East at the moment is not a particularly fertile mission field for liberal ideals. At the same time, the region’s role in world oil markets and its place on world trade routes makes it a region from which we cannot walk away. Managing our national portfolio under these difficult circumstances will take more maturity and patience than either the Bush or the Obama administration (so far) has displayed. We can hope that the unraveling of its once bright hopes in the region will lead the White House to a process of reflection and analysis that will bring it to a more sober understanding of the region and our choices in it. Beyond that, we must hope that the winning candidate in 2016 will bring a more sensible and grounded approach to what for some time to come will be an inescapable but difficult theater for American foreign policy.

show comments
  • Anthony

    “But we live in an information economy now. Critical ideas have a materiality to them and repression seems to fuel critique” – where will it happen next.

    • Kavanna

      Globalism divides the world into, not haves and have-nots, but knows and knows-not.

  • Joseph Shmeau

    “In the Bush years, those who raised questions about Iraq’s and the Arab world’s readiness for democracy were denounced as racists; in the age of Obama they are called Occidentalists or sometimes Islamophobes.”

    Very true. In the Bush years especially, non-Americans counseling against the operation in Iraq were accused of ignorance,prejudice and anti-Americanism, when they were in fact well-informed and pro-American. At least the Bush actions, misguided as they were, worked to the benefit of the Iraqi Kurds. The Obama actions don’t seem to have worked to the benefit of anyone.

  • wbonesteel

    Sorry. I can’t get past the title of the piece. If I’d said that, Walter, you’d call me a conspiracy theorist…and rightfully so.

  • Fred

    Savages have always engaged in magical thinking and probably always will.

  • xbox361

    Is there any reason with deal with the losers of the Middle East?
    Frack, drill, rinse and repeat.

  • Susan

    “it is certainly true that Israeli actions sometimes contribute to an emotional climate that makes crazy talk appealing to minds that otherwise might be ready to take a more sensible view”
    Good article but why the snarky comment about Israeli actions? Any seemingly aggressive or hostile behavior on the part of Israel is usually a purely defensive posture, considering that anywhere in Israel you can look to the horizon and see the outline of at least one hostile country, experience rocket attacks from the north and south, and deal with the possibility of a bomb exploding in a bus or cafe near you. Israeli reaction to those dangers is nowhere near as extreme as what any other country would employ for their own protection.

    • David Zion

      You have to through that in for your article to be taken seriously. The little,, knowing wink.

    • Larry


      READ GENESIS 47.



  • Richard T

    I prefer a more straightforward explanation, which also applies to Iraq: politicians over there are stuck in a winner-take-all mentality, so that (as in Ukraine) fair elections aren’t on their agenda, and voting is just civil war carried on by other means.

    If conspiracy theories and senseless hatred were enough to doom a nation, where would the US be on the 50th anniversary of JFK’s death and the 45th of MLK’s?

    • Larry


      HE TOLD US:








      by Samuel Roth

      Chapter IV


  • ltlee1

    1. The quoted translated text is anti-America. One needs to equate American interest with Israeli interest to make it anti-Semitism.
    2. Based on the English text, Ammar’s comments are definitely not word for word and perhaps out of context but within the scope of interpretation.
    3. To the extent that Egyptian writer Amr Ammar’s translation was biased, a Washington DC based organization’s translation could also be biased. May be you should get a Middle East based Islamist translation for comparison?
    4. Free press, assuming well informed readers, is one falsehood cancelled out by another falsehood, one view point balanced by another view point. Amr Ammar, if allowed free expression, of course would continue to say what he wanted unchallenged until common Egyptians are more informed about the US. Given that Americans are well informed about America yet many of them are misled by American presses, it is unrealistic to expect Egyptian presses to report accurately about America and American intentions all the time.

    • Jack Levey

      Itlee, he characterized Stewart’s remarks as “a Jew who wandered in the desert, but, thank God, found his homeland. This man says, in the heart of Egypt and on an Egyptian media outlet, that Egypt belongs to them, that it is his homeland.” You see that as an anti-American lie on his part, and an not-anti-Jewish lie?

      • ltlee1

        Egypt was indeed once belonged to the Jewish people although not exclusively per the holy book. How is repeating a widespread belief, including Egypt coptics’, an anti-Jewish lie? Speaking as an American, his words could be taken to mean that the US is now controlling Egypt through its payments to the Egyptian military. That is more troublesome.

        • JERRY

          stop worrying about Jewish people owning Egypt and other such nonsense, and start worrying about your atrocious English.

      • ltlee1

        Egypt was indeed once belonged to the Jewish people although not exclusively per the holy book. How is repeating a widespread belief, including Egypt coptics’, an anti-Jewish lie? Speaking as an American, his words could be taken to mean that the US is now controlling Egypt through its payments to the Egyptian military. That is more
        troublesome. Anyway, Israel could not take over Egypt by itself. America can.

        • Larry



  • cammo99

    This article does not delve deep enough. Last weekend the NY Times contradicted itself and blamed Benghazi on a video. The video was first ascribed to a “Zionist” Israeli, it was in fact produced by a Coptic Christian who had fled. Non-Muslim minorities are at increasing risk as the Islamists teach a form of Islam that places all others in dhimmitude. The Islamic Revolutionaries who have muted moderates in the region, if there are any, and commit crimes against humanity every day in the name of Allah are not freedom fighters, they simply can not be, it is an implausible paradox. Even in England where last week Muslim store owners in London were accused of apostasy for selling ale, are threatened with a punishment of 40 lashes.
    I do not need a better translation to know the Mr. Mead has written a truthful. The OIC, 57 Islamic nations, have already tried to pass a Resolution in the UNHRC to make it a crime to criticize Islam. The OIC published a paper last year, 2013, and is pushing an agenda that will proclaim American free speech Islamaphobia. This was all in English, I don’t need a translator.
    The Egyptian Army deposed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi was intent on ending civil law and imposing sharia law courts. It is no coincidence terrorists with the aid of the MB sent s suicide bomber to a Coptic church and killed over 50 people and maimed another 100, the week before “the uprising” and one of the first results of the uprising was the freeing of thousands of MB terrorists.
    In Egypt today where ever the MB has power Jizyahs and dhimmitude are forced on non-Muslims. It is also worth hearing that the Egyptian army acted when it did to prevent the MB backed militant and terrorist groups based in the South Sinai, were preparing to form and act as a Islamic Revolutionary army in order to institute Morsi’s harsh sharia laws. Honor killings, convert killings, church burning, and Morsi’s sharia law push which would have ended any parliamentary majoritarianism that would guarantee minorities non-Muslims rights was on the line. Obama chose that moment to suspend some arms shipments and threaten to end the rest; from the President who declared “Jihad isn’t Jihad.” Who killed Sadat?
    I will make a statement more plain and less tactful than Mr. Mead. Islamists do not believe non-Muslims are human, it doesn’t stop with Morsi calling Jews the descendants of “swine and apes”, anyone not in line at the mosque is at risk and stating such is a crime?

    • Larry

      READ GENESIS 47.

  • David Zion

    Professor Mead. Your denials are not very believable. As a Jew, I admit that we do in fact control Egypt. Jon Stewart is head of our PR department. We control both the Muslim Brotherhood and Egyptian Military. We arranged for Islam to adopt circumcision to make Egyptian men less alluring to Egyptian women and thereby gain control of the Egyptian female as well.

    • Pass26

      Shhhhhhhhh! The grand elder said to be quiet about the circumcisions!!! Insurance issues.

    • Larry


      PART 1

      By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.

      June 27, 2011

      Power Elite (PE) agent Lord Herbert Samuel [JEW] was one of the first to refer to the establishment of a “new world order” (House of Lords, May 16 and August 7, 1918). As a member of the Milner Group that controlled British foreign affairs from the beginning of the 20th century until WWII, Samuel in 1921 appointed Hajj Amin al-Husseini as Mufti and head political administrator of Arab Palestine. Lord Alfred Milner, who was in charge of executing PE member Cecil Rhodes’ secret “scheme to take the government of the whole world,” on June 27, 1923 in the House of Lords said regarding Palestine that there “must always remain not an Arab country or a Jewish country, but… an international country in which all the world has a special interest—I think some Mandatory Power will
      always be required.”

      While al-Husseini was in Palestine, Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt in 1928, and it has been from this organization that radical Islamic groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al Qaeda have come (Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff of Newsweek have reported connections between al Qaeda and MB members Mamoun Darkazanli and Youssef Nada). Former CIA agent Robert Baer in Sleeping With the Devil explained how the U.S. “made
      common cause with the [Muslim] Brothers” and used them “to do our dirty work in Yemen, Afghanistan and plenty of other places.”

      In the 1930s, the MB supported Adolph Hitler (distributing his Mein
      Kampf), and by 1936 with only 800 members began to oppose British rule in Egypt. By 1938, the MB’s membership had grown to 200,000, and by the late 1940s to at least a half million.

      In 1933, when Adolph Hitler came to power in Germany, Young Egypt (Green Shirts) was also founded in October of that year by Ahmed Hussein who had been greatly influenced by al-Husseini. Young Egypt supported Hitler and the Nazis, and one of its early members was Anwar Sadat who helped the Nazis during WWII. In a September 18, 1953 letter to the Egyptian news daily Al Mussauar, he expressed his admiration for Hitler.

  • Alexander Scipio

    I’d be interested in the thoughts of Dr Mead on the concept of pre-modern and modern coexisting, especially in the same region. Political islam – shariah – is pre-modern. Prohibitions on female education, female sexual gratification, honor killings, vaccine rejection, and its fundamental precept of killing everyone not of the tribe – are just parts of its foundation. My brother “taught” physics in the University of Kabul for the Peace Corps in 1977 – the idea that man landed on the moon was ridiculed – the moon is only the size of the space in which it fits between your finger and thumb, looking into the sky. Mohammad said so. The idea of multiculturalism pretty much requires accepting that pre-modern and modern can coexist, but is utterly fallacious:

    Thought experiment: Assume we had not reduced the population of the American Indian, that their Stone Age culture had been allowed to continue side-by-side our Industrial, and now Information Age culture. Assume a Kiowa woman in a teepee outside Denver, and that she is dying in childbirth. Do you A) use modernity to save her – thereby rejecting pre-modern culture (proving my point), or B) let her die when you can save her, thereby rejecting humanity for the sake of “multiculturalism ” -and proving you are not “modern”, with modern respect for life (again proving my point)?

    Islam is the root of all wars on the planet. It has started all of them for the purpose of converting or kiling non-muslims. This is a tribal society. Even within muslim regions tribes routinely kill those outside the tribe. Not just Sunni v Shia; with whom do we negotiate in Afghanistan? “Tribal Leaders.” Tribal cultures are pre-modern. Pre-modern and modern CANNOT co-exist. If we value what modernity brings – science, travel, education, higher living standards, freedom, liberty…. islam will have to be yanked into the modern world (voluntarily or otherwise), separated – permanently – FROM the modern world, or simply exterminated. To do otherwise assumes that modern cultures are willing to continue to have their children murdered by pre-modern man, which is absurd.

    • Larry

      PURE BS!



      Long before the Arab conquest, as a British Member of Parliament pointed out in 1939,

      a thousand years before the Prophet Mohammed was born, the Jew, already exiled, sitting by the waters of Babylon, was singing: “If I forget thee O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning.”1

      The Reverend Parkes says that the theme that “gives to Jewish history characteristics which begin by being unusual and end by being
      unique” is that “the religion which was developing into a universalistic ethical monotheism never lost its root in The Land.”2

      … Jewry has nowhere established another independent national centre; and, as is natural, the Land of Israel is intertwined far more intimately into the religious and historic memories of the people; for their connection with the country has been of much longer duration — in fact it has been continuous from the 2nd millenium B.C.E. up to modem times…. The Land therefore has provided an emotional centre which has endured through the whole of their period of “exile”, and has led to
      constant returns or attempted returns, culminating in our own day in the
      Zionist Movement.”3

      Israel had already become a nation about 1220 B.C.-nearly two thousand years before the first Arab invasion began.4 The Jews’
      persistent presence on the land survived periodic attempts to extinguish them throughout their history. Around the first century,

      Many Diaspora Jews observed the commandments of pilgrimage,
      and on the High Holidays in Jerusalem one might have met Jews from such different lands as Parthia, Media, Elam, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia Minor, I’hrygia, Pamphylia, Cyrene, Crete, Rome and Arabia.5

      By the time of the Roman conquest of Judea the Jews were considered “turbulent and troublesome people to deal with,” according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica,6 when they stubbornly refused to surrender their country to Roman rule.

      The Emperor Hadrian, “determined to stamp out this aggressive Jewish
      nationalism,” ruled that henceforth Jewish traditions such as
      circumcision, the Sabbath, reading of the law-in fact, the beliefs of Judaism itself-were illegal and “forbidden.”7 Hadrian was “determined to convert the still half-ruined Jerusalem into a Roman colony.” After
      the Jews’ Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, the revolt of Jewish leader Bar Kochba-who had “200,000 men at his command” — recaptured Jerusalem and many “strongholds and villages throughout the country.” The “full-scale country-wide war … raged with fierce bitterness for four
      years, the Romans having to bring in legion after legion of reinforcements to suppress the insurgents.”8

      Although the Romans ultimately regained political reign, “sacked the
      city [of Jerusalem] … and expelled the bulk of the Jewish survivors from the country”9 the cost of victory was shattering — “It is said that as many as 580,000 men were slain!” — Romans as well as Jews. It was after the debacle that Hadrian changed the name of the city of Jerusalem to
      Aelia Capitolina, ordered the building of a temple of Jupiter on the Jewish Temple site and “forbade any Jew, on pain of death, to
      appear within sight of the city.”10

      But in the same way that the name Judea did not disappear, neither did the Jews abandon their land. A number had obstinately remained, and many others quickly returned to rebuild their world.
      Some Jews, however, fled the Roman conquest for other points — including Arabia, where they formed some new settlements and in many instances joined Jewish Arabian communities established at the time of release from the captivity in Babylon or existing even before then. Thus evolved the flight of the first “Palestinian” refugees-the Judeans, or Jews.


      A look at the haven where these “Palestinian” or “Judean” Jewish refugees from the Romans found sanctuary is important to understanding the “heart of the matter” in the Middle East today
      — the conflict between Arab and Jew. The circumstances of the Arabian Jewish communities in the Arabian Peninsula — both before and after the Arab Conquest-bear importantly upon Arab-Jewish relationships until this day, because the pattern that developed in Arabia established a tradition that has been followed ever since.

      According to Arabist scholar Alfred Guillaume, Jews probably first settled
      in Arabia in connection with the fall of Samaria in 721 B.C.:

      …it is almost certain that the self-contained Jewish military colony in Aswan and upper Egypt, about which the world knew nothing until a few years ago, was founded just after the fall of Samaria, and consequently it is not impossible that some Jewish settlements in Arabia were due to fugitives fleeing from the old northern capital of the Hebrews.

      Guillaurne is certain that “in the first and second centuries A.D., Arabia offered a near asylum” to the Jews who had been victimized by the “utterly ruthless” Romans.11

      In the Arabian land considered by many to be “purely Arab,” the
      land which would spawn Islam many centuries later,

      Numbers of Jewish and Christian settlements were established
      in different parts of Arabia, both spreading Aramaic and Hellenistic culture. The chief southern Arabian Christian centre was in Najran, where a relatively advanced political life was developed. Jews and Judaised Arabs were everywhere, especially in Yathrib, later renamed Medina. They were mainly agriculturists and artisans. Their origin is uncertain and many different theories have been advanced.12

      Although the fact is little recognized, more than one historian has affirmed at the Arab world’s second holiest city, Medina, was one of the
      allegedly “purely Arab” cities that actually was first settled by Jewish tribes.” Bernard Lewis writes:

      The city of Medina, some 280 miles north of Mecca, had originally been settled by Jewish tribes from the north, especially the Banu Nadir and Banu Quraiza. The comparative richness of the town attracted an
      infiltration of pagan Arabs who came at first as clients of the Jews and
      ultimately sucqeeded in dominating them. Medina, or, as it was known before Islam, Yathrib, had no form of stable government at all. The town was tom by the feuds of the rival Arab tribes of Aus and Khazraj, with the Jews maintaining an uneasy balance of power. The latter, engaged
      mainly in agriculture and handicrafts, were economically and culturally
      superior to the Arabs, and were consequently disliked…. as soon as the Arabs had attained unity through the agency of Muhammad they attacked and ultimately eliminated the Jews.13

      1. Parkes, Whose Land?, p. 26.

      2. Ibid., p. 10.

      3. J.B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament
      (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1955), p. 378. 20.M. Stem,
      “The Political and Social History of Judea Under Roman Rule,” in A
      History of the Jewish People, H.H. Ben-Sasson, ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
      University Press, 1976), p. 266.

      4. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1911), vol. XX, p. 622.

      5. Ibid., pp. 621-622,

      6. Yigael Yadin, Masada (New York: Random
      House, 1966), p. 11.

      7. Ibid.

      8. Encyclapaedia Britannica, vol. XX, p. 622.

      9. Alfred Guillaume, Islam (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1954), pp. 10-11.

      10. Bernard Lewis, The Arabs in History, rev. ed. (New York, Evanston, San
      Francisco, London: Harper-Colophon Books, 1966), pp. 31-32.

      11. Salo W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 3 vols. (New

      Columbia University Press, 1937), 1, pp. 308T

      12. Lewis, Arabs in History, p. 40.

      13. S. Safrai, “The Lands of the Diaspora,” in A History ofthe
      Jewish People, Ben-Sasson, ed., p. 380.

  • Sully Shimshiliwitz

    The blood of billions is on the hands of the banks and those who run them. Whether in this life or the next, they will pay for what they have done.

    • Larry

      “The blood of billions is on the hands of the banks and those who run them”.




  • Larry


    Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, was in fact:


    Rabbi Shallum, son of the then Resh Gelutha, in Babel, perceiving this dreadful predicament, went to Mahomed, and offering him his submission, friendship, and services, endeavoured to enter with him into a friendly compact. Mahomed accepted his proposition with pleasure, conceived a great affection for him, and took his daughter, a handsome young girl, for wife; he made him also a general in his army, and gave him the name of Abu Bachr al Chaliva al Zadik, literally:

    The father of the maiden, the descendant of the righteous; this means, that of all his wives, who were either widows or divorced women, this one was the only one who had never been married before, and then she was the granddaughter of the celebrated chief of the captivity; therefore, the descendant of the righteous. This occurrence induced Mahomed to give up his terrible intention to destroy the Jews in his country, and thus did Rabbi Shallum save his people.


    [Why Muhammad hated alcohol]

    Abu Bachr and Aliman now resolved among themselves to remove the dangerous enemy of the Jews, Bucheran. One evening Mahomed, Bucheran,
    Aliman, and Abu Bachr, were drinking together; the latter two soon saw that
    Mahomed and the astrologer were strongly intoxicated, and lay stretched out in
    a deep and profound sleep. Abu Bachr thereupon drew the sword of Mahomed from its scabbard, cut off therewith Bucharan’s head, and put the bloody sword back into its receptacle, and both then lay themselves down quietly near Mahomed to sleep. When Mahomed awoke and saw his friend lying decapitated near him, he cried out in a fury: “This terrible deed has been done by one of us three in our drunkenness!” Abu Bachr thereupon said quite unconcernedly:

    “Let each one draw his sword, and he whose weapon is stained with blood,
    must needs be the murderer!”

    They all drew their swords, and that of Mahomed was completely dyed with fresh blood, which proved thus clearly to his satisfaction that he had murdered his friend. He was greatly grieved at this discovery; cursed and condemned the wine which was the cause of this murder, and swore that he never would drink any more, and that also no one should do so who wishes to enter heaven. This is the cause why wine is prohibited to the Mahomedans.

    At a later period, Mahomed learned the whole transaction, and that his father-in-law was the perpetrator of the bloody deed; wherefore, he lost his favour, and he would not permit him to come before him. Abu Bachr went thereupon and conquered sixty places, which had not yet submitted to Mahomed, and presented them to him, through which means he became again reconciled to
    him, was received in favour, and remained thereafter at court.


    From the Accession of the Mahomedans to that of the Europeans.

    By Rabbi Joseph Schwarz, 1850



    by Samuel Roth

    Chapter IV


  • Gary Anderson

    While some conspirators make connections that defy reality, Zionism is a multiracial worldwide conspiracy that is very real. We should all take not of that fact. It seeks world domination and regime change based on the doctrine of Yinon Zionism. It isn’t rocket science, people!

    • Kemo Spear

      “While some conspirators make connections that defy reality…”
      Kind of like what you do on a daily basis, huh Gary?
      Keeping that tinfoil hat on good and tight???

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2015 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service