Connect with us

Features

Part 6 of my story of the delusional Winnipeg con man: The lawyer who worked with the con man for years

Bob Anderson and the non disclosure agreements Devlin insisted on people signing

By BERNIE BELLAN This is the sixth part of a story about a delusional Winnipegger who believes he is someone of great wealth and has spent the better part of 30 years contacting people all over the world telling them that he wants to invest in their businesses or projects.

The other five parts have been posted here at: Part 1: “The delusional Winnipeg con man who actually believed his own elaborate con and led one victim in Africa to consider committing suicide”; Part 2: “Meeting the con man for the first time in 2021; Part 3: “An explosive email arrives in my inbox on January 16.”; Part 4: Someone in LA figures out who everyone else was that was conned; and Part 5: The plan to buy jets in Israel and convert them to planes that could fight forest fires

As I was piecing together this rather incredible story, I was repeatedly told that one of the things Devlin would insist upon when he began communicating with someone – supposedly for the purpose of backing them in one sort of investment or another, was that they sign a non disclosure agreement.

One name kept coming up: Bob Anderson. Anderson, I was told, was the person who would send out these nondisclosure agreements. In two instances, I was also told, Bob Anderson sent out cease and desist letters to individuals, one of whom, Jonathan Soloway, had entered into what he thought was a legitimate business relationship with Devlin, but who was so angered and frustrated over Devlin’s constant delaying providing the funds which he had promised would be forthcoming that he went so far as to contact Devlin’s parents. Apparently that angered Devlin to the point where he asked Bob Anderson to send a cease and desist letter to Jonathan. The other letter, as Bob was to tell me during a phone conversation, was sent to a psychiatrist in a hospital where Devlin was being treated.

It was in my talking to Rick that I learned about Bob Anderson and the integral role he had played in leading the many individuals who fell victim to Fred Devlin to believe that Devlin was absolutely on the up and up. Because Rick was the one individual who was the first to come to know all the other players in this story, I relied upon Rick to be the intermediary between me and each of the individuals to whom I eventually spoke – either over the phone or, as was the case, through emails with one particularly unfortunate individual in Africa who told me he was contemplating suicide over what Devlin had done to him.

But, as Rick explained to me when he first broached the name Bob Anderson to me, it was Bob Anderson who had aided Devlin in his duplicity. Rick added that he doubted Anderson would be willing to speak with me because, Rick thought, Bob would be too embarrassed to own up to his role in this whole sordid story.

In time though, Rick got back to me to say that Anderson had agreed to talk to me after all. I was somewhat surprised when I heard that – and wondered what had led to his change of heart?

Now, I have to admit that, although I’ve had a long career in publishing, I wouldn’t have thought of myself as a well known journalist. Sure, I’ve Googled my name a couple of times (who hasn’t?) and what comes up are a number of stories with which I’ve been associated over the years. I’m most proud of work I did over 20 years ago to expose an investment fund in Manitoba known as the Crocus Fund. It really had nothing to do with the Jewish community per se, but, each year for many years The Jewish Post & News would publish an annual investment guide. It was in 2002 that I wrote an exposé of the Crocus Fund which, I suggested in my article, was in very deep financial trouble.

For that, I was threatened with a lawsuit (to which I referred earlier in this story). But, in 2004 the Crocus Fund was placed into receivership and further, I went on to become the representative plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Crocus Fund shareholders against a number of defendants. That lawsuit eventually garnered over $12 million in damages for Crocus Fund shareholders. I’m quite proud of the role I played, both in exposing the house of cards upon which the Crocus Fund was built, and in being able to help bring some degree of compensation to Crocus Fund shareholders. So, when you Google my name, as perhaps Bob Anderson might have done, you’re going to come across some references to my role in the whole Crocus Fund affair.

I mention all this as a preamble to what is about to follow, which is an account of my phone conversation with Bob Anderson. In what now ensues I try to retain as much of the flavour of our actual conversation as possible. Thus, there seem to be sudden leaps in Anderson’s train of thought, but that’s not all that unusual. After all, there’s a well known president whose speaking style is so incoherent that even he is aware of that, but tries to pretend that it’s deliberate by describing it as “the weave.” To a certain extent Anderson weaved in and out of thoughts, too.

Bob Anderson phoned me one day in February 2026, to say that he was willing to talk to me. I told him that I was going to record the conversation, to which he responded: “I just want to tell you it’s an honor and a pleasure to talk to you about what I read about you. You have led a meritorious life, self-sacrificing, particularly for the Jewish community, and it sounds like you’re the ultimate voice of reason that they need more people like you. And I just want to take my hat off to you and the service you’ve offered and bestowed upon your community up there, and I just am proud to be talking to you.”

Well, talk about exaggeration! I’m not sure there are many who would go so far as to describe what I’ve accomplished over the course of my career in quite such laudatory terms – and I honestly wondered whether I was being set up for what would turn into nothing more than a round of total B.S.

So, I responded: “Well, thank you for that. Okay, this isn’t about me. But let me start by asking you, When did you first meet Fred Devlin?”

Anderson: “It was about 20 years ago.”

Me: “Do you want to tell me the circumstances?”

Anderson: “Sure. Okay, well, I mean, I don’t have to tell you that, but I met him about 20 years ago up in Winnipeg. I met him in person.” (Why would he say he didn’t have to tell me that, I wondered? Why not?)

He went on: “It was the first time I had contact with him. And I’ll try to give you a little short story, .. I’m not actively practicing law, but that was back when I was actively practicing law, and I was engaged by a group up in Canada who had a real bleeding heart for Bolivia, and they wanted to buy a bank … Like, put it in the foundation.” (I still don’t know what he was talking about, but as is often the case when you’re interviewing someone, you don’t want to disrupt their train of thought, so you just let them wander on – strange as what they may have just said sounds.) “It was a bank that was struggling in Bolivia.” (I have to admit that the first thought that came to mind when he mentioned a bank in Bolivia was “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.” Anyone who’s seen that movie would understand what I’m talking about.)

Anderson continued: “So I went all the way up to Canada, and Mr. Devlin – Fred Devlin was a prospective investor they wanted me to talk to as I was their kind of international tax counsel for the project.” (Again, who were the “they” Anderson was referring to, I wondered?) “And I met him in person. We had about a 15- to 20-minute meeting, and he was very well-dressed, very well-spoken.

“He was very well-groomed, had a good sense of humor, and, you know, we seemed to kind of have common ground on spiritual… Even though he’s Jewish, I’m Christian. We had, you know, the fact that he felt family… His priorities in life were similar to mine, you know, God, family, and country kind of thing. So we just kind of hit it off personally.

“He seemed like a real nice guy, and then I just kind of lost contact. I mean, we didn’t have any contact for many years. You want to go to the next step?”

Me: “Before we do that – when you met him, what did he present himself as? What did he claim to be?”

Anderson: “He was just, you know, it’s funny. In fact, I’m just trying to think. He was just a businessman, a successful business real estate investor. Real estate. Business real estate.”

Me: “Did he mention at that time the Xanadu group of companies?”

Anderson: “Not at that time. No, sir. No, sir…He kept bragging, kind of bragging. Well, not bragging, but he was… The number one thing in his resumé was his relationship with Izzy Asper…And then we had a hiatus of several years.”

I then told Anderson that, of all the people with whom I had spoken, his relationship with Devlin went back the longest (20 years). I said to him: “I’ve been trying to understand when did Fred completely flip? And apparently it happened sometime when he was around 30 that he started developing these delusions.

“Apparently he was quite capable before then. I believe he had a position with the…” (and I’m deliberately omitting where Devlin was employed because if I get too specific a lawyer might say that I didn’t sufficiently disguise Devlin’s true identity.) “And he did get his Master’s in Business Administration at the University of Manitoba.

“So that all checks. So, you know, for me, the curious part is when someone develops a delusion, a psychosis, when did it happen? And according to his mother, she corroborated that it happened sometime when he was around 30 and he’s 60 now. So you would have met him when he was in his 40s.

“And I think what’s happened, my observation is that it’s gotten worse in more recent times, his delusions. But I want you to continue. You said there was a period of time then when you didn’t have any contact with him, right?”

Anderson: “Right.”

Me: “So when were you in contact again?’

Anderson: “Well, just to put a finishing on the Bolivia story, I went ahead and did that project with the Canadians.” (The way Anderson said “the Canadians,” you’d think he’s talking about a really shady group, like say, “the Chechens.”) “But, you know, Fred ended up not wanting to invest.”

Now, at this point Anderson’s language got really twisted, but I want to retain the flavour of it: “I had a little suspicion of being capable of investing and then it was a nice opportunity for somebody who had a heart for the living people, you know, like an altruistic, a neo-mercenary kind of a heart, which he presented himself as representing. But anyway, he had no involvement in that project, lost contact with him for, it could have been 10 years, I mean, it’s just been a lot of years. I mean, it could have been, it could have easily been 10 years, 15 years.

“And then he just kind of, he got in contact with me about, I think it was for the explicit purpose of doing an NCND, a non-disclosure agreement.” (I wasn’t sure what Anderson meant by “NCND.” I knew a nondisclosure agreement is commonly referred to as an NDA, but I had to look up NCND. The closest I could come to that term is what is known as an NCNDA: a Non-Circumvention, Non-Disclosure Agreement. Here’s the definition of an NCNDA: “a specific type of contract used in international trade or business deals where one party wants to ensure that the other party does not bypass them (“circumvent” them) to do business directly with their contacts or intermediaries, while also keeping shared information confidential.”)

“I don’t know why he, I guess he probably figured I would do it for him for free or something. He kind of preyed upon, as I look back on it, he kind of, I guess, you know, felt like I might do it for him on a friendship basis or something like that.

“And I did do it and he loved it. I mean, it’s a great agreement. It’s really tight, I’ve spent a lot of time on it, it’s only a couple of pages, but it’s a very tight NCND.

“And then from that though, the reason I’m making a point of that, most of my, like, quote-unquote, representing him, not as an attorney, but just as a quote-unquote advisor, most of it was sending this NCND out to all these people. Like every so often he’d send an NCND here to protect me and, you know, protect him. So I would send a cover letter and an NCND and that’s most of the contact, that’s like 99%, 90%, 90% of the contact I had with people on his behalf was sending out this NCND for them to sign and execute.

“I don’t know why…, I guess he probably figured I would do it for him for free or something. He kind of preyed upon, as I look back on it, he kind of, you know, felt like I might do it for him on a friendship basis or something like that.

“And I did do it and he loved it. I mean, it’s a great agreement. You know, it’s really tight, I’ve spent a lot of time on it, it’s only a couple of pages, but it’s a very tight NCND.

At this point I have to step back – and give my head a shake – something I did metaphorically throughout my researching material for this story. Here was a lawyer – talking about creating very “tight” non-disclosure agreements or, as he referred to them, as “NCND’s” – and he’s clearly very proud of the work he did for Devlin.

But, what the hell was it all for, I wondered? And didn’t he ever stop to think – just why was he sending out those NDAs or NCND’s or whatever the heck he wanted to call them? What was it in whatever agreements that various parties were signing with Devlin that Anderson was requiring of the recipients of whatever it was he was sending to them that had to remain so absolutely confidential that no one could even talk about what was in those agreements with anyone else?

Since my conversation with Anderson though, I have seen actual agreements between Devlin and some of the individuals who were to become part of his vast delusion. I admit those agreements are very impressive. They spell out in precise detail the respective obligations of Devlin and the person with whom he was entering into an agreement. They are very detailed contracts – and clearly reflect the knowledge and experience of someone who had an extensive business background.

Which makes me wonder all the more – when did someone of such obvious talent and experience go completely off the rails? My own brief encounter with Devlin eight years ago didn’t offer me the kind of insight into his approach that others must have witnessed – where they would have been dazzled by his extreme self-confidence, composure, and apparent vast business experience. In time, as I was to speak to others who were taken in by Devlin – and some of them mentioned names of some very prominent individuals who had also come into contact with Devlin and who had also spoken quite highly of him, I began to realize that his delusion was so intricate – and he so totally believed in what he was telling people, that it was possible to get a better understanding how he was able to completely fool so many people into thinking he was the real deal.

I must also disclose that I have attempted to contact some of the people whose names have been mentioned to me as also having been part of Devlin’s network – and who hold very prominent positions in the business world. In one instance, I did get a response from one of those individuals.

I had written a similar email to several different people, in which I asked about the extent of their relationships with Fred Devlin.

I would send emails to head offices of companies or organizations, explaining who I was and why I was trying to contact specific individuals. In one instance, I did receive a response.In the following email, I’ve left out the real name of the person who is the subject of this story. I’ve also omitted the name of the person I was trying to contact”

Hi,

I’m writing a story about someone by the name of …. …. is totally delusional and has defrauded many different people all over the world. 

I’m told that …. had some contact with … at some point. I’d like to speak to … about the nature of their contact with …

I can be reached at ….

Thank you.

Bernie Bellan

Publisher,

jewishpostandnews.ca

Here is the response I received:

Hi Bernie,

Thanks for reaching out.

This is a troubling email! I’m afraid I don’t know Mr. …. very well. …oversees the development of … helps to facilitate investment into … markets it nationally and internationally. Mr. …reached out to … in order to inquire about opportunities at … so we gave him some information and connected him with a couple of folks to continue his conversations, same as we would for any company or individual considering investing in operations at ….. It’s been several months since we last spoke.

I wish you the best with your project!

….

I thanked …for responding to me:

Hi ….,

Thanks for getting back to me. I wonder what became of the contacts you gave …. His pattern of behaviour has been to insinuate himself into someone’s life by making him seem to be someone of great importance and wealth, and then once he has someone’s interest – to broach the idea that he would be willing to invest in a particular project that someone may be trying to advance. He would also try to obtain contacts from whoever it was that he was discussing a project idea with.

The problem is he is absolutely delusional. He has no money and all his talk of putting up investment dollars has always been total nonsense.

I hope that whoever it was that you might have put in touch with … didn’t get too far into it with him. He’s deceived people all over the world into thinking that he’s someone of great wealth.

While the story is fascinating, it’s also very sad once you know how many people have been deceived by ….. Right now I’m working closely with someone who’s been trying to get a police investigation of …. launched, but it’s been a bureaucratic nightmare as different police forces claim that it’s not in their jurisdiction and they keep passing the buck.

I’ve also put that same individual in touch with one of Winnipeg’s leading law firms. Their head of civil litigation says that there’s a solid case to be made against …., but the problem is he’s absolutely penniless so what’s the point of seeing him?. I believe he’s being supported by his very wealthy parents, but the lawyer says that they can’t be held liable for their son’s behaviour.

And, as I wrote to you, it’s all so crazy that I decided to write a story about it. But even as I’ve been writing it I’v’e been finding out more and more about …, including just recently when I was told that he had contacted you and ….from ….

You were good enough to respond to me.

…. hasn’t.

Thanks at least  for responding.

-Bernie

And so, even though I began this story by asking how so many people could have been taken in by what was clear to me almost from the moment I met Devlin, was his total delusion that he was a hugely wealthy businessman and owner of a vast network of companies, as time wore on – and I spoke to more individuals who had fallen prey to his charming blarney, I began to understand how each individual was unaware there were other individuals who had become part of Devlin’s delusion. (And that is why those nondisclosure agreements or whatever Anderson called them played such a crucial role in keeping each individual who was to be victimized by Devlin ignorant of others who were in similar situations.)

It occurred to me as I was writing this story that the fact Devlin was so insistent on anyone with whom he was supposedly entering into some sort of business arrangement sign a nondisclosure agreement perhaps meant that somewhere in that twisted mind of his he had a sense that what he was doing was actually a total fraud. Or, perhaps his past business experience would come to the fore and he would put into practice lessons he had learned years before without actually realizing that he was exhibiting totally delusional behaviour. I don’t think I’ll ever know if either of those suppositions is correct.

I asked Bob to describe what he would send to the various individuals to whom he sent nondisclosure agreements. How would he explain why he wanted them to sign NDAs (or whatever he called them)?

He said that he’d send “a cover letter out explaining the request to sign the agreement…So I’d send, you know, just, hello, how are you, please see the attached agreement. That was the extent of these letters I’d sent out.”

Me: “Any idea approximately how many of these letters you sent out?”

Bob: “10 to 15.”

That at least gave me some idea of the scope of Devlin’s network – and how many more people might have been approached by him within the past few years of whom I wasn’t aware. Remember, Bob had said that he had first met Devlin 20 years ago and then had lost contact with him for 10-15 years. It was only after they reconnected that Devlin asked Bob to start sending out those NDAs, which must mean it was likely only within the past 5-10 years that his delusion took hold completely. Also, each of the individuals with whom I spoke, other than Dan Winthrop, told me they had come into contact with Devlin only in the past five years. Dan Winthrop, you may remember reading, said that he met Devlin 16 or 18 years ago – he wasn’t sure.

All this makes me wonder what was going on in Devlin’s life in the more distant past. I know that he had been hospitalized on several occasions – in the psych ward, in different hospitals, based on accounts given to me by different individuals. And, I know that when I met him he claimed that he had stepped back from running his vast network of companies and was at that point interested in pursuing his philanthropic work.

But, something must have happened that led Devlin to become so active in establishing contact with different individuals in recent years – always with the intention – or so he would tell them, of investing in different businesses or, as proved to one of the most damaging lies he told – of helping that individual in Africa to whom I referred earlier (Charlie) establish a charitable foundation.

Since no one in Devlin’s family has ever been willing to talk about Devlin – beyond saying that he’s “not well,” it’s very hard to know what else he might have been up to in all the years since he had attained a very senior business position. Was he for a very long time attempting to inveigle himself into people’s lives under the premise that he was a wealthy businessman who wanted to invest in their businesses or help bring a project to fruition?

I can’t really answer that. But it is apparent that within the past five years Fred Devlin was quite active in contacting various individuals and spinning his incredibly deluded fantasy.

To return to Bob Anderson’s story, which takes an interesting twist. He had explained that he had sent out a large number of NDAs on behalf of Devlin and then, he said: “I lost contact with him again.”

But, Bob continued: “Shortly after that, we got real hot and heavy, I mean, you know, he wanted me to come up to Winnipeg and he wanted to be the family counsellor and all this stuff – to the point where he had plane reservations and I was about to step on a plane to go up there and see him.

“Then all of a sudden I got this call, you know, he was in the hospital, he was sick or something like that, which I don’t really buy the story now. I think he just couldn’t afford a plane ticket or something like that. And then several years after that, I think he had this relapse, probably one of these relapses into the hospital, probably for the mental side, you know.

“I think he might have said he hurt himself. And then several years after that, he got back in touch with me again and wanted me to write some more of these letters, which I did. And then I lost contact after a couple years after that and then he resurfaced a couple years ago.

“And then for the past couple years on and off, he’s been requesting the same type of thing. And then in the process, offering me all these opportunities and, you know, all these potential contract agreements and going to make me rich. And he always wanted to give me a piece of the equity.“

Now, if you’re confused by the apparent contradictions in Bob’s story, then join the club. What period of time was he talking about, I wondered? At one point he claimed that he “had lost contact with him again,” but then he says “Shortly after that, we got real hot and heavy.” So, how long was it that he didn’t have contact with Fred?

It doesn’t really matter because this entire story is about one huge delusion: Devlin’s unshakable belief that he was an extremely wealthy and successful businessman. Trying to figure out the chronology of events that occurred – such as when did Bob Anderson actually have contact with Devlin is almost impossible since Bob’s narrative is all over the place.

I asked him though, what were the “opportunities” that he said Devlin offered him?

Here’s what he answered: ‘Let me pull up his letterhead. Let’s see, I’m pulling it up here. Okay. He said I was going to become Chief Global and Senior Advisor. And he gave me this address called Boulevard Grand, Duchesne, Charlotte, Luxembourg City.”

Me: “The headquarters for his global group of companies – right?”

Bob: “Right, right.”

Me: “Man, his delusions are fascinating, but you can just imagine the imagination that went into them.”

Bob: “No kidding, no kidding.”

Me: “So did he ever offer to pay you for any of the work you were doing?”

Bob: “Oh, yeah. Oh, and as a matter of fact, he paid me a thousand dollars or something a couple times, but I think that ended up coming from his father. I think he borrowed it from his father or maybe his wife or maybe even his mother or his father himself. It might have even been one of his brothers. I’ve had sporadic contact with most of his family.”

That payment provided a crucial piece of evidence that Devlin’s family was well aware what he was doing – and, in fact, was complicit in his behaviour. Based on that, when I was later to talk to Jonathan (whose name I mentioned early in this story as someone who had lost quite a bit of money as a direct result of Devlin having convinced him to stop paying his debts; I’ll explain all that in another chapter), I told Jonathan that he should sue Devlin, his wife, and his parents. In fact, I told Jonathan that I knew of several Winnipeg lawyers who might be willing to take on a lawsuit of that sort. I did contact a very well known lawyer and, as of the time of writing and, as I’ll explain, the law firm was willing to take on the case to sue Devlin on behalf of Jonathan, but the lawyer who was going to handle the case said there were no legal grounds for extending the lawsuit to Devlin’s wife or his parents.

Bob, however, noted that getting that $1,000 payment from Devlin wasn’t easy, but he was sure the cheque was signed either by Devlin’s wife or his father; he couldn’t recall.

I said to him that “the point of my trying to find out about the source of his funds is Rick has been pretty adamant that without the support of his parents, he wouldn’t have been able to carry on whatever he’s been doing.”

Bob: “It was just amazing. I’m sure the company line he gave to all the other people he talked to, to Rick and Jonathan and everybody else was that he had some impediment where he couldn’t transfer all of his millions of dollars into North America. I mean, I kept saying, ‘If you’re the richest guy in the world,’ which is what he claimed at one point, ‘why can’t you send $100 or $200?’ And he said, ‘well, I just don’t have any cash. I can’t get cash.’ “

I said to Bob that what he just told me led me to react the same way I had reacted when I had heard everyone else’s story of their dealings with Fred Devlin: “It sounds like this guy just wanders in and out of reality. And when he’s in his delusional state, he starts contacting people. I’m not sure how much thinking was going into it. His delusion simply takes over.”

Rick, though, had mentioned that Bob had sent a couple of “cease and desist” letters, as well as NDAs. I wanted to ask Bob about those cease and desist letters. I said to him: “I was told Fred had sent out cease and desist letters. Did you author those letters, as well?”

Bob: ‘Well, when he was in the hospital, he claimed they were keeping him against his will. He would dictate a letter and I would just send it out on his behalf. I’d say on behalf of Fred Devlin. I made it very clear that I was just parroting what he had told me to say. I don’t think it ever did any good at all, it sounded so desperate, I really kind of felt sorry for him.”

As I noted earlier, Bob explained that he had sent two cease and desist letters. One was to a psychiatrist in a hospital where Fred was being treated. The other, however, was to Jonathan Soloway – the fellow in Ontario who actually lost a lot of money as a result of Devlin’s promises to Jonathan that he would be paid a huge salary if he entered into a contractual relationship with Devlin to develop a Real Estate Investment Trust. Jonathan did not take kindly to Devlin’s failure to fulfill his obligations and subsequently began to send threatening letters to Devlin saying that he was going to sue him for breach of contract. That’s when Devlin asked Bob to send Jonathan a cease and desist letter.

Bob now admits he is deeply embarrassed over having sent that letter, saying he’s since “apologized” to Jonathan. Bob says: “And here Fred had me send this letter to him like he was being preyed upon by Jonathan. It was just the opposite.”

At that point in my conversation with Bob, he went off on a totally different tangent, telling me he had “a deep interest in outer space and rockets.” What? Where was this going, I wondered?

He began to describe his particular interest in “outer space entrepreneurship.”

Now, before you lose interest, I have to disclose that in another conversation that I had – previous to my conversation with Bob, I was told that Devlin’s past experience in the aviation industry had played a prominent role in his having networked with someone else – this time an Israeli fellow by the name of Avi, who now lives in the US. That will be the subject of a later chapter, but suffice to know that Devlin was able to convince many intelligent people that he wanted to enter into an arrangement whereby he would bring jets from Israel to be converted into water bombers in Canada.

And that’s where Bob Anderson picks up the story: “I got an email from a lady named Dalit Galon (not her real name) and she’s in Canada, but she’s like a public relations representative for Israeli aerospace. I looked her up – you know, on AI, she’s a legitimate person. And Fred’s big project was going to be to convert 67 planes from Israel in Canada into flame retardant sprayers.”

I said to Bob that I had heard that story from someone named Avi. I asked Bob whether he knew Avi? He said he didn’t.

Bob continued with his story about Devlin and his having contacted people involved in the Israeli aerospace industry: “I have correspondence, I don’t think he could have faked these emails. I have correspondence from him to these people, and these people replying to him.”

I said to him: “Yeah, I can see how people can get enmeshed in this kind of web. It’s not conspiracy, it’s just delusion.”

Of course though, nothing ever came of Devlin’s grand plan to bring jets over from Israel to Canada. Bob eventually came to the realization that there was nothing of substance in any of Devlin’s supposed plan: “The main thing really that came through to me is, the thing he wanted to do most – was just talk. We got to talk, we got to talk, and we get on the phone, he’s taking my time to talk for half an hour, and then he said, ‘Well, I got to go, we’ll continue next week.’ He never comes to any conclusion.”

I responded: “Well, that’s the pattern of someone who’s delusional. Okay, so was there a certain point where you just realized that this is all just fakery, and that he is delusional? Or was it just gradually, over time, you came to that conclusion?”

Bob: “I’d get to a point and say, ‘Fred, we’ve got to have some money here, a retainer or something, I just can’t deal with talking and spending my time’, and I’d kind of cut him off. He’d come back in six months and say, ‘well, I think I’ve got it all worked out, including the money.’

“And I kept thinking maybe – like Elon Musk will make these crazy things. To me, putting a civilization on Mars is about as crazy as what Fred would talk about. Although, of course, Fred claims he’s richer than Elon, he knows Elon.”

And then Bob was brought back into reality by Rick: “That’s where I got the face slap,” he says. “You know, he (Rick) shook me up. He was the first person that said, ‘Look, you know, this ain’t right. This ain’t so. I’ve got all these other people (who had been victimized by Devlin).

“But he was the first person that really shook me into reality. And I just felt like a dog for, you know, just going along with this thing. And then that’s when I apologized to Jonathan and I apologized to Rick.

“And I just felt like a dog. And, you know, I blame it on me for being gullible. You know, I don’t hold any grudges. I shouldn’t have been that gullible. You know, I’m no spring chicken. I’m 76 years old, but I still should not have been that gullible.”

I said to Bob: “But you see, as I wrote to Rick last night, I really wanted to speak to you because you were coming at it from a different perspective. You weren’t being asked to invest. You were sort of facilitating Bart’s delusions to a certain extent.”

Bob: “Yeah. Unfortunately. Yeah.”

And then Bob asked me something that left me confused for a moment. He said: “Let me ask you: Did you get the museum open?”

Me: “What museum?”

Bob: “I read an article that you were going to convert a synagogue.”

I realized then what it was to which he was referring. It was a story I had written some years back about a plan by a Winnipeg doctor to partially convert Winnipeg’s oldest synagogue building into a partial museum. I was quite impressed that Bob had actually read that story. It told me he wasn’t just buttering me up when he was laying it on so thick at the beginning of our conversation about what an honour it was to speak to someone who had done so much for the Jewish community of Winnipeg. Of course, that’s nonsense. I’m just a former newspaper publisher. But it did tell me that Bob had actually read at least one article I had written.

I explained to him that I didn’t know what the status of that museum project was, but it did remind me that I should follow it up with that Winnipeg doctor. I said to Bob: “As far as I know, they’re just doing feasibility studies now. Honestly, I don’t believe that project will go anywhere. But unlike Fred Devlin’s ideas, it does have some basis in reality.”

Bob said: “You come across with a stellar resumé and life’s work, and you’ve done a lot of great things. I just want to commend you, sir, and it was a pleasure to talk to you.”

I responded: “Okay, thanks very much, Bob.”

He said: “Take care. Yes, sir. Let me know if you need anything.”

I signed off, saying: “I certainly will. Thank you very much for calling. Have a good day.”

Coming next: A patient in a psych ward meets Fred Devlin in the psych ward

Features

How the Experience Changes From Spectator to Player in Perya Games

Perya games often attract a crowd for a reason. Standing near a booth during a fiesta lets you track the colors, follow the dice, and read the reactions around the table. The tension builds with every roll, yet nothing personal sits on the line when you choose to watch. The moment you place a bet, the same game can feel entirely different, because what used to be casual observation turns into a committed choice with a real outcome.

This guide breaks down the difference between watching a perya game and actually playing one, including how digital Perya and online color games shift the social feel of the experience.

Quick Overview

Spectatorship allows time to observe. A viewer can study color trends, listen to other players’ comments, and enjoy the drama without making an immediate wager. Participation requires a decision before the result, plus the emotional and financial weight that tends to follow each round. Digital perya adds another layer by moving the experience from a shared booth environment to a private screen.

The Core Difference: Distance vs Decision

Watching provides distance. A spectator can linger for multiple rounds, note which colors appear, and talk to friends nearby. No deadline exists to commit, and leaving the booth stays simple because no money has been placed.

Playing removes that cushion. A player selects before the outcome appears. In a traditional perya color game, the decision comes first—choose a color—then the operator rolls three colored dice. Philippine event references often describe the same basic structure: a color choice followed by a three-dice result.

Why Watching Can Feel Lighter

From the sidelines, everything becomes easier to take in. A spectator can catch small details: one player switching picks at the last second, someone celebrating loudly, or the operator preparing the next round. With no wager involved, attention can stay flexible.

Spectators also get to mentally “test” picks for free. A viewer might think, “I would have chosen red,” without any consequences. When a player makes that same pick with money attached, the result tends to land harder. A win may feel like relief, while a loss can lead to disappointment, surprise, or the urge to jump into the next round quickly.

A Fiesta Scenario: When a “Streak” Becomes a Trap

Consider Nico, a typical fiesta visitor. Nico starts out watching the Color Game from behind the crowd. After three rounds, red appears more than once, and the repetition begins to stand out. From a spectator’s angle, noticing a “streak” feels like harmless pattern-spotting.

Once Nico decides to play, the emotional temperature changes. Money becomes tied to a color choice, and the next roll becomes personally important. The key issue is predictability: seeing repeated results does not create proof that the next outcome will follow the same direction. A sequence of earlier colors offers history, not certainty.

The Social Experience: Booth Culture vs Private Play

Perya in the Philippines is often tied to community celebrations. A traditional peryahan sits alongside rides, food stalls, and other booths, creating an atmosphere that feels closer to public entertainment than a quiet gambling setting. Many descriptions of perya culture focus on that social environment—neighbors gathering, friends commenting on outcomes, and strangers reacting together in real time.

This setting affects the split between watching and playing. Someone standing beside the booth can laugh, talk, and observe without the same pressure a bettor feels. Players stay inside the same lively space, yet attention narrows to selecting, waiting, and reacting.

Online perya removes much of that layer. The game may look familiar, but the crowd energy, booth sounds, and spontaneous conversation get replaced by an app interface. The experience becomes more individual, even when the rules resemble the ones used in physical perya booths.

Online Perya and Digital Color Games: What Carries Over, What Changes

Searches for “online perya” reflect how the term “perya” goes beyond a direct English translation of fair or carnival. In local use, it connects to fiestas, attractions, booth games, and shared social time. A digital platform can copy the mechanics of a particular perya game while leaving behind the environment that gives it much of its personality.

GameZone’s perya-related materials, for example, describe digital versions of familiar concepts such as Color Game and other arcade-style titles. Its Color Game format references six colors and three dice and includes reminders that previous results do not function as reliable predictors for future rounds. Gameplay familiarity and lived experience do not always match, especially when the setting shifts from a shared booth to a personal screen.

Pattern-Watching and the Illusion of Predictive Power

A common mistake involves turning observation into assumed advantage. A spectator might watch a sequence such as:

Red → Red → Blue → Red

and start looking for a rule. That mental move makes sense because humans naturally search for order in random sequences. Gambling research often discusses cognitive biases tied to pattern detection, including how representativeness and availability can influence judgment in chance-based activities such as dice tasks and bingo-style environments.

A pattern that feels meaningful may still fail as a guide. Past outcomes help describe what already occurred, rather than guarantee what happens next. Treating streaks as certainty can push decisions that rely more on emotion than probability.

Watching vs Playing: How Reactions and Behavior Shift

A spectator noticing repeated colors may treat it as casual information. A player seeing the same repetition may feel pressure to act on it, even without any real evidence that the next roll will follow the same direction.

Choice also reshapes emotional response. A viewer can imagine different picks without consequence. A player must commit to one selection, which makes uncertainty feel immediate. When a result conflicts with expectations, a spectator continues watching. A player may feel disappointment and consider changing strategy or betting again quickly.

Other people’s reactions land differently too. From the sidelines, celebrations and complaints add entertainment. From inside the game, those reactions can affect mood, focus, and decision timing, especially between rounds.

Risk and Responsible Play: When Money Enters the Picture

The gap between watching and playing becomes more serious when wagers are involved. Spectating stays low-risk entertainment. Playing introduces financial exposure and the need for self-control.

Time and budget planning can matter more than “reading” the table. Increasing a stake due to frustration, treating near-misses as signals, or believing a result is “due” can lead to impulsive choices. PAGCOR’s responsible gaming guidance commonly emphasizes setting time and money limits, expecting that losses can happen, avoiding borrowed funds, not chasing losses, and using self-exclusion tools when stepping away becomes difficult.

GameZone Notes: Licensing, Age Limits, and Official Sources

GameZone, also referred to as GZone in some materials, appears on PAGCOR’s regulatory listing as GAMEZONE (TOTAL GAMEZONE XTREME INCORPORATED), and the platform identifies itself as PAGCOR-licensed. Its terms and login flow indicate access for qualified users aged 21 and above, including an age confirmation step.

For iPhone users, the Philippine App Store listing for GameZone – #1 Tongits Platform identifies DigiPlus as the developer and lists an iOS 15.0 or later requirement. Verifying developer details and using official store listings can help avoid unofficial download sources.

FAQ

Is watching a perya game different from playing one?
Watching involves observation without wagering, while playing requires a personal decision and introduces financial risk.

Does watching many rounds help predict the next result?
Multiple past outcomes can show what has happened, but a sequence alone does not establish a dependable prediction for the next round.

Can people under 21 use GameZone?
GameZone’s terms and login requirements restrict registration and play to qualified individuals aged 21 and above.

Continue Reading

Features

THE RED INHERITANCE — PART 2

Ethel & Julius Rosenberg


(Ed. note: If you haven’t read Part 1 of “The Red Inheritance,” you can find it here: The Red Inheritance.)

By H.C. Piloski
FOREWORD
The Wider Circle
What follows is not a continuation so much as an expansion. The first part traced a single thread — a granddaughter’s attempt to understand the man whose life shaped her own. But every thread, once pulled, reveals others. And every inheritance, once examined, widens into a circle.


This second part enters that wider circle.
It begins with a photograph discovered only after the first part was finished: a small, creased image of a protest on Carlton Street in June 1953. In the blur of bodies stands a young man — Rachel’s grandfather — raising his hand in defense of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, two American Jews condemned in a trial that divided a continent. That photograph opened a door Rachel had not known existed.
It revealed that her grandfather’s world was not confined to Winnipeg’s North End, nor to the furnace rooms and union halls where he spent his working life. His convictions reached outward — to New York, to Europe, to Israel and Palestine, to the global struggles of the twentieth century.
This part follows those convictions.
It traces his years in the CPR union, where he learned solidarity not as a slogan but as a practice. It follows his activism within the Jewish left — activism that began long before his retirement, rooted in the political commitments he carried through the railway yards, the union halls, and the neighbourhood streets of the North End. It examines his belief in Israel’s creation and his unwavering insistence on Palestinian rights. It explores his commitment to nuclear disarmament, his distrust of state power, his hope for a world that might yet choose justice over fear.
It also follows the path of his son — Rachel’s father — who walked beside him for a time before turning away, carrying both admiration and ambivalence. And it follows Rachel herself, as she moves from personal memory into historical inquiry, discovering that her grandfather’s life was part of a larger, often contradictory, often painful, always human story.
This part is not an attempt to sanctify him. It is an attempt to understand him — and the century he lived in.
The shadows are real. The contradictions are real. The hope is real.
This story is one thread in a larger tapestry of inherited memory and consequence. And the circle continues to widen.

Selkirk Avenue circa 1930


PROLOGUE
Rachel had always believed her grandfather’s world ended at the corner of Selkirk and Salter — the bakery, the union hall, the old brick houses of the North End. It was a geography of memory, not history. A place where men argued about wages and women argued about recipes, where politics was spoken in kitchens and carried in pockets, folded like prayer.
But after he died, and after she finished the part she thought would be the end of it, she found the photograph.
It was small, creased, almost brittle. Her father had tucked it into a folder he hadn’t opened in years. On the back, in her grandfather’s handwriting, were the words: Carlton Street, June 1953.
On the front: a crowd of men and women standing outside the old Winnipeg Free Press building. Some held signs. Some shouted. Some looked frightened. And there, almost lost in the blur of bodies, was her zaida — younger than she had ever seen him, his hair black, his jaw set, his hand raised in a gesture that was not anger but insistence.
She didn’t know what the protest was about until she looked up the date.
The Rosenberg execution.

Protesters against the imminent execution of the Rosenbergs in front of the White House in 1953


Her grandfather had stood on Carlton Street, in Winnipeg, protesting the death of two American Jews accused of betraying their country. He had stood there as though the fate of strangers thousands of miles away was somehow his own.
That was the moment Rachel understood: Her grandfather’s world had never been small. It had only been local.
The circle was wider — far wider — than she had ever imagined.
And if she wanted to understand him, truly understand him, she would have to follow that circle outward: from Winnipeg to New York, from union halls to espionage files, from the Holocaust’s shadow to the contradictions of Israel and Palestine, from Cold War paranoia to the fragile hope of peace.
She would have to learn why a man who loved his family so fiercely also believed he owed something to the world.
She would have to learn why her father followed him for a time, and why he stopped.
She would have to learn what it meant to inherit not only memory, but conviction.
Rachel closed the folder. She packed a suitcase. She booked a flight.
The wider circle had opened. She stepped into it.

workers in CPR yards circa 1950


THE UNION MAN
The first thing Rachel noticed about the CPR archives was the smell — dust, paper, and the faint metallic tang of old machinery, as though the building itself remembered the trains that once thundered past it. She had come here reluctantly, almost skeptically. She wasn’t sure what she expected to find. Her grandfather had worked for the railway for decades, but she had always thought of it as a job, not a calling.
She was wrong.
The archivist, a thin man with wire-rimmed glasses, handed her a stack of union newsletters from the 1950s and 60s. “Your grandfather’s name appears quite a bit,” he said, almost casually. “He wasn’t just a member. He was active.”
Active. The word felt too small.
She flipped through the pages. There he was — David Levinson — listed as a shop steward, then as a delegate, then as a representative on a labour committee that had petitioned the CPR for safer working conditions. She found minutes from meetings where he had argued for wage parity, for antidiscrimination clauses, for the hiring of more immigrant workers. She found a letter he had written to the union president, urging solidarity with striking textile workers in Montreal.
She found, tucked between two newsletters, a faded photograph of him standing outside the CPR yards, his arm around a fellow worker, both of them smiling in a way that suggested victory, or at least defiance.
Her grandfather had not been a man who simply held opinions. He had been a man who acted.
But what struck her most was not the union work itself — it was how deeply it intertwined with the politics she had only begun to understand. In the margins of one newsletter, in her grandfather’s unmistakable handwriting, she found a note:
Solidarity is the only weapon the poor have.
It wasn’t a slogan. It was a belief.
And suddenly, she understood something she had missed entirely: her grandfather’s political life had not begun after retirement. It had begun here — in the yards, in the meetings, in the long nights spent drafting resolutions and writing letters. His involvement in the Jewish left, his membership in the Communist Party, his activism for peace and justice — all of it had grown from the soil of the railway.
He had carried his convictions with him to work every day, tucked into his lunch pail alongside sandwiches wrapped in wax paper. He had argued politics during breaks, organized meetings after shifts, and spent weekends in smoky rooms debating the future of workers, of Jews, of the world.
Rachel felt a strange mixture of pride and unease. Pride, because she could see the beginnings of the man she had written about in the first part — the stubbornness, the moral clarity, the refusal to accept injustice as inevitable. Unease, because she realized how little she had understood him.
She had written about his politics, but not their roots. She had written about his convictions, but not their labour. She had written about his life, but not his work.
Her father had tried to tell her, once. He had said, “Your zaida wasn’t just a leftist. He was a union man. That’s where it all started.” She had nodded, distracted, thinking she already knew.
She hadn’t known anything.
She turned another page and found a brief report from a meeting of the Jewish left organization — dated 1961. Her grandfather had spoken about the dangers of nuclear proliferation, about the moral responsibility of workers to oppose war, about the need for solidarity across borders. He had been involved long before retirement. He had been involved while raising a family, while working shifts, while navigating the Cold War’s suspicion and fear.
He had lived his politics openly, stubbornly, deliberately.
Rachel closed the newsletter and sat back.
The wider circle was not only global. It was personal.

old Winnipeg Free Press building on Carlton Street


CARLTON STREET, 1953
Rachel didn’t intend to go to Carlton Street. She had only meant to walk, to clear her head after the shock of seeing her grandfather in that photograph. But her feet carried her there anyway, as though the city itself remembered what she had forgotten.
The former Winnipeg Free Press building — the Old Lady of Carlton Street — was still there, though it no longer housed reporters or printing presses. Its stone façade, once the backdrop to arguments, deadlines, and the hum of a city’s news, now sheltered provincial civil servants shuffling between offices, fluorescent lights, and government memos. Rachel stood on the sidewalk where her grandfather had once stood, where he had raised his hand in protest on a June afternoon in 1953, demanding justice for two American Jews he had never met. The building had changed purpose, but not presence. It watched her with the same quiet solidity it must have offered him, as though it remembered everything.
She tried to imagine the scene: the crowd, the signs, the tension, the fear. The way people must have looked over their shoulders, worried about being photographed, named, watched — but her grandfather and the few other protesters looked up, not down, toward the illuminated news bulletin above the entrance.
She tried to picture him — young, determined, stubborn — standing there with the conviction that what happened in New York mattered in Winnipeg, that injustice anywhere was a threat everywhere, that solidarity was not a slogan but a responsibility. She imagined him arriving after a shift at the CPR yards, still smelling faintly of grease and metal, carrying the political commitments he had already been living for years: union solidarity, Jewish left activism, Communist meetings held in borrowed basements and back rooms. Carlton Street had not been an exception. It had been an extension of the life he was already leading.
She wondered if her father had been there too, a boy holding his father’s hand, not understanding the words but understanding the urgency.
She wondered why no one had told her.
She wondered what else she didn’t know.
A bus hissed to a stop beside her. A group of teenagers spilled out, laughing, unaware of the ghosts beneath their feet. Rachel felt a sudden, sharp ache — not grief, exactly, but recognition. Her grandfather had lived in a world where politics were not abstractions but obligations. He had believed that the fate of strangers mattered. He had believed that justice was not a matter of geography.
She took out the photograph again. She held it up to the building. The past and present did not align, but the gesture felt necessary.
Her phone buzzed. A message from her father: “Call me when you can. I found something else you should see.”
She stared at the screen. Her father had always been careful with his words, careful with his memories, careful with the parts of his life that touched his father’s politics. He had followed his father for a time — marches, meetings, pamphlets — before turning away, quietly, without explanation.
Rachel lowered the photograph, walked back to where she had parked, unlocked the car, and slid into the driver’s seat. She started the engine and pulled away from Carlton Street, heading north through the familiar grid of the city, toward her father’s house.
The wider circle was widening again. And she was being pulled into it.


THE FATHER’S BOX
Her father lived in the same house Rachel had grown up in, though it felt smaller now, as though the walls had absorbed decades of arguments, silences, and the quiet persistence of memory. He met her at the door with a look she couldn’t quite read — not worry, not excitement, but something like resignation. From the back room Rachel could hear her mother speaking softly to someone.
“I found more,” he said. He didn’t hug her. He never did. But he stepped aside to let her in, which was its own kind of embrace.
The dining room table was covered with papers. Not scattered — arranged. Her father had always been meticulous, even when the rest of his life felt chaotic. Rachel saw folders, envelopes, a few brittle photographs, and a cardboard box she recognized instantly.
Her grandfather’s box.
It had sat in the basement for years, untouched, because her father had insisted it was “just old papers.” Rachel had believed him. She had believed a lot of things he said about her grandfather, because he said them with the authority of someone who had lived through the same storms.
Now she wasn’t sure what he had lived through, or what he had chosen to forget.
Her father gestured to the box. “I didn’t want to open it before,” he said. “I wasn’t ready.”
Rachel sat down. “What changed?”
He hesitated. “You did.”
She didn’t know what that meant, but she didn’t ask. She reached for the box. The cardboard was soft with age, the edges worn. She lifted the lid.
Inside were papers from the Jewish left organization her grandfather had devoted himself to — not only after retirement, but long before it. Meeting minutes. Pamphlets. Letters. A stack of mimeographed newsletters with headlines about peace, justice, workers’ rights, and the dangers of nuclear proliferation. She saw dates from the 1950s, the 60s, the 70s — decades of activism layered like sediment.
And then she saw it — a folder labeled Holocaust Education Committee.
Her breath caught.
She opened it carefully. Inside were copies of speeches her grandfather had given before the Winnipeg School Board, urging them to include Holocaust education in the curriculum. There were letters he had written to the Minister of Education, arguing that genocide was not a Jewish tragedy but a human one, and that children needed to understand how hatred becomes policy.
There were notes in his handwriting — fierce, urgent, uncompromising:
Memory is not passive. Memory is protection. Teach them before someone else teaches them to hate.
Rachel felt her throat tighten.
Her father watched her quietly. “He believed in that work,” he said. “More than anything.”
She looked up. “You never told me.”
He exhaled, long and slow. “I didn’t think you wanted to know. You were always… focused on the personal. The family stories. The furnace. The neighbourhood. I didn’t think you cared about the politics.”
“I care now,” she said.
He nodded, but his expression shifted — something darker, something unresolved.
“There’s more,” he said. “About me.”
Rachel waited.
Her father sat down across from her, folding his hands as though preparing for confession.
“I followed him,” he said. “For a while. The meetings. The marches. The Rosenberg protest — I was there. I was a kid, but I remember the shouting, the fear. I remember him telling me that justice mattered even when it was dangerous.”
Rachel felt a jolt — not shock, but recognition. She had always sensed there was something her father wasn’t saying.
“But I couldn’t stay,” he said. “Not like he did. I didn’t have his… certainty. His stubbornness. His faith in people. I admired him, but I couldn’t be him.”
Rachel didn’t speak. She let him continue.
“He never blamed me,” her father said. “But I blamed myself. For a long time.”
Rachel reached across the table and touched his hand. It was the first time she had done that in years.
Her father swallowed hard. “There’s something else,” he said. “Something you need to see.”
He stood, walked to the hallway, and returned with a thin envelope. He placed it in front of her.
Rachel opened it.
Inside was an RCMP surveillance report. Her father’s name was on it.
She felt the room tilt.
“They questioned me once,” he said quietly. “About meetings I’d gone to with him. They wanted to know who he talked to. Who he met with. I never told you. I never told anyone.”
Rachel looked at him — really looked at him — and saw the weight he had carried, the fear he had inherited, the silence he had chosen.
Her grandfather had lived his politics openly. Her father had lived them in the shadows.
And she — she had lived them unknowingly.
The circle widened again.
Rachel closed the envelope. She didn’t know what to say. But she knew what she had to do.


THE EDUCATION FILES
Rachel carried the box home like something fragile, though it wasn’t the cardboard she was protecting — it was the weight inside it. She set it on her kitchen table, cleared a space around it, and opened it again, this time slowly, deliberately, as though she were entering a room she had been warned about.
The Holocaust Education Committee folder lay on top. She lifted it out and spread the contents across the table. The papers were yellowed, but the ink was still sharp, still insistent. Her grandfather’s handwriting — angular, impatient, unmistakably his — ran along the margins of typed documents like commentary from a man who could never leave a thought alone.
She read the first speech.
It was addressed to the Winnipeg School Board, dated 1978. Her grandfather argued that Holocaust education was not simply about history, but about vigilance. He wrote that genocide begins with language, with silence, with the normalization of cruelty. He wrote that children needed to understand how ordinary people become complicit, how bureaucracies become weapons, how prejudice becomes policy.
He wrote:
If we do not teach them what happened, someone else will teach them why it should happen again.
Rachel felt a chill. She had known her grandfather was passionate about justice, but she had not known he had stood before the school board, before elected officials, before committees, insisting that memory was a civic duty.
She turned to the next document — a letter to the Minister of Education. Her grandfather wrote about survivors in Winnipeg who had never been asked to speak, whose stories were fading, whose trauma had been carried quietly through decades of Canadian politeness. He argued that the province had a responsibility to give those stories a place in classrooms, not as Jewish history, but as human warning.
Rachel imagined him writing these letters late at night, after work, after dinner, after everyone else had gone to bed. She imagined him sitting at the kitchen table — the same table where she had once eaten soup and listened to him tell stories about the neighbourhood — never knowing the depth of the battles he fought outside it.
She picked up another sheet — minutes from a meeting of the Jewish left organization. Her grandfather had spoken about the rise of neoNazi groups in Canada, about the danger of complacency, about the need for education as prevention. His words were blunt, unadorned, almost harsh:
We cannot rely on governments to remember. We must force them to.
Rachel sat back, overwhelmed.
This was not the gentle man who had fixed her bicycle, who had slipped her coins for candy, who had told her stories about growing up in the old North End. This was a man who had carried the Holocaust not as memory but as mandate. A man who believed that justice required confrontation. A man who refused to let silence do its work. A man who had fought fascism all his life — including as a Canadian soldier overseas during the Second World War.
She reached for another document — a list of schools where he had spoken. West Kildonan. Elmwood. St. James. River Heights. Transcona. Schools across the city, across neighbourhoods that had never known him, never known his history, never known the weight he carried.
She wondered how many students remembered him. She wondered what he had said. She wondered if any of them had gone home that day and asked their parents questions that had never been asked before.
Her phone buzzed. A message from her father:
Did you find the education files?
She typed back: Yes.
A moment later: He was proud of that work. He didn’t say it, but he was.
Rachel stared at the screen. Her father had inherited the silence, not the certainty. She had inherited the questions.
She looked again at the papers on the table. Her grandfather’s voice seemed to rise from them — urgent, insistent, unyielding.
This was not a man who had lived quietly. This was a man who had lived deliberately.
And she was only beginning to understand him.
Rachel gathered the papers, placed them back in the folder, and closed the box. She knew what she had to do next.
She needed to see the archives. She needed to see the records. She needed to see the world he had fought against — and the world he had fought for.
The circle widened again.
And she followed it.
Closing Note
Rachel sat at her kitchen table long after the papers were back in the box. The city outside moved on, unaware of the man whose life she had just unfolded — a life lived in conviction, in struggle, in stubborn hope.
She understood now that her grandfather’s politics had not been theory but duty, carried through union halls, marches, classrooms, and quiet nights at the kitchen table. She understood that her father had lived in the shadow of that certainty, and that she herself had inherited something different — the responsibility to listen.
She touched the photograph from Carlton Street, the crease worn soft by time. Her grandfather’s raised hand seemed less like protest now and more like insistence: Pay attention. Remember. Act.
She closed the box gently.
And now, she realized, she was listening too.
H.C. Piloski is the one who listens when the past begins to speak again.

Comment from Veronika (Oct. 1): Thanks

Continue Reading

Features

Musings from Dizengoff Street – by Bruce Brown (updated Oct. 1)

(Posted Oct. 1): So my daughter told me about the new apartment rental she was considering for the upcoming academic year in Jerusalem. “Third floor.  Three bedrooms for three roommates.  Twenty minutes from the university.  Close to the bus stop.  Grocery store nearby.”  She itemized.  Then with her next breath, “Shetler in the next building.” Kinda’ took my breath away.  Is that where we live?  What we’ve become?  What pre-occupies us?  Yes.  Yes.  Yes. 

Despite my recurring safe room musings.  It still kinda’ shook my core.  But once I regained my existential footing.  I realized how lucky we are.  We have a well-prepared wartime infrastructure.  We are conscious of wartime safety and security.   It’s become second nature.  Even when choosing an apartment.  Then I recalled how last year.  When my daughter first moved to Jerusalem.  I focused on the shelter thing.  Even timed a dash to the nearest shelter.  She cringed with embarrassment.  As she does with much of what I do – dad stuff and I digress.  Now here she is.  One year later.  Itemizing her well thought out considerations.  Including the shelter.   I guess she listens to me after all.  Well…sometimes anyway.

(Posted Sept. 28) Caution.  Caution.  A very long muse ahead….
 
So Prime Minister Netanyahu made his fifteenth address at the United Nations General Assembly.  I get excited with every speech.  Preparing some lightly buttered popcorn and comfortably settling in front of the T.V. for some high-stakes geopolitical posturing.  And this one didn’t miss the mark and the high bar Netanyahu sets for himself.
 
Liked when he referred to our ‘friends’ leaving the hall before he spoke.  Asking.  And smirking.  At the beginning of his speech.  If there are any other “moral cowards” who would like to leave.  He could have said much worse. 
 
Liked his strong defense against the acrimonious, hostile, and simply incorrect accusation of genocide.  Insisting, with examples, of Israel being guilty of the opposite.  Supplying a million polio vaccinations.  Distributing two million tons of food.  Providing warnings of pending attacks -leaflets, cellphone calls, ‘knocks on the roof’ (an IDF tactic of firing non-lethal projectiles towards roof tops as warning to noncombatants to evacuate before a pending airstrike)- in civilian areas where Hamas is inevitably hiding.  Netanyahu also referenced Colonel John Spencer, head of Urban Warfare studies at West Point and the preeminent expert on, well, urban warfare.   Who clearly defends Israel as having done more to prevent civilian casualties in war than any other military in history.  That’s quite a claim!  So yes.  Israel can actually be guilty of ediconeg – the opposite of genocide.
 
Didn’t like Netanyahu’s Ben-Gviresque defense of violent West Bank settlers.  Or is it  Judea & Samaria.  I admittedly struggle in geographically defining the area, I digress.  And didn’t like him referring to these settlers as “juvenile delinquents”.  They are much more than that!  If not terrorists, they should at least be called -and treated- as violent criminals.  I admittedly struggle with finding the appropriate label, again digressing.  Overall, this struck me as pandering to his far-right electorate.  Standing before the green marble wall of the UN podium…hmmm, not the most appropriate venue for local electioneering.   
 
Didn’t like his beeper reference.  While brilliant, the pager attack in Lebanon happened in Sept 2024.  Was so taken aback by this reference that I fact checked the date between mouthfuls of popcorn.  And Israel already took credit for this publicly and at several international forums.  Just seemed a bit dated, forced and out of place. 
 
Liked the swipe at our ‘friend’ Mamdani.  On the podium of the U.N. in N.Y.   No less!
 
Liked his call for Jews around the world to stand tall.  “Raise your head high.  Be proud.  Be confident.  Don’t be intimidated.”  He admonished.  Okay, confession time.  I will not speak Hebrew with the wife when travelling overseas.  Am a bit scared and maybe need to stand a bit taller.  I digress.
 
Liked Netanyahu’s callout to the Iranian people.  Declaring that “The power of the people will overcome the people in power.”  Although he didn’t have to provide a public service announcement for Elon Musk’s Starlink, waving a Starlink device at the podium. 
 
Didn’t like, as pointed out by the Jerusalem Post, that there was no complementary vision to his fiery, hardline and somewhat Sparta-like rhetoric.  No mention of a more conciliatory, Athenia-like vision for the day after.  Emphasizing Israel’s desire for peace and what it can and has offered the world.   
 
Loved the overall theme.  That Israel will survive.  And thrive.  Because, as he exclaimed several times, “We have no other choice!”  This was based on a reference in his address to his older brother Yonathan Netanayhu who led the rescue at Entebbe in 1976 and was the only Israeli casualty.  Netanyahu even thanked the Uganda government for recently erecting a statue dedicated to his brother.  Thought this a nice, personal touch.
 
Loved Netanyahu’s passion.  His fiery indignation echoing throughout his almost forty-minute speech.  His fury at the goldarn outrageous, bigoted, noxious branding of Israel as ‘bad’ by much of the world’s useful idiots.  Although should have channeled some of that ire to a more conciliatory day after vision.
 
Anyway.  As for the United Nations.  That bastion of partiality and moral cowardice.  Think it should be renamed the United Naars.  Again I digress.  

(Posted Sept. 25) Looping back to an August 9 muse about my visit to Jerusalem’s Basimta Café and its dispute with the neighborhood ultra-orthodox for opening on Shabbat.  Which I felt was a bit of a storm in a teacup as there wasn’t much protest action when I visited.  But kerfuffles nonetheless.  Unfortunately the café decided against remaining open on Shabbat.  According to the café manager “…it will return to what it was intended to be: a calm, pleasant and open place for coffee, culture and dialogue.”   As it turns out, the manager is also CEO of Jews for Jesus.  Which is fine by me.  Live and let live.  But just wondering if this was also reason for the café brouhaha.  As there are many other Jerusalem cafes open on Shabbat which the ultra-orthodox do not protest against.  Not that I want to give anyone ideas.  Just sayin’.

(Ed. note: Just to put Bruce’s latest musing in context, here again is what he wrote on August 9): August 8, 2026)

Outside Basimta Café in Central Jerusalem.  Love the red shirt against a tiny sea of black.  Not sure I am shrugging because of the ultra-orthodox uproar over a Jerusalem café operating on Shabbat or the lack of an ultra-orthodox uproar over a Jerusalem café operating on Shabbat.  For the last six weeks Israeli headlines shouted about the cafe chaos.  With the ultra-religious blocking entrances and storming the café.  While shouting ‘Shabbos!  Shabbos!’   Upsetting the secular amongst us just wanting to enjoy our Saturday iced matchas.  So the wife and I thought we would check it out.  And.  Yes.  Buy something to support the business.  Uproar.  Not.  Blocked entrances.  Not.  Storming the café.  Not.  Albeit there were police barriers separating the devout protesters from the coffee drinkers.  The protesters being just a few dozen black clad, pious Jews.  Mostly teenagers.   And yes.  Shouting ‘Shabbos!  Shabbos!’  Certainly underwhelming in its reported mayhem.  Reminds me of the famous saying misattributed to Mark Twain – “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed.  If you do, you’re misinformed.”  But I did enjoy my iced matcha.

(Posted Sept. 22) Admire him or despise him. Love him or hate him. Commend him or vilify him. Praise him or criticize him. Respect him or disdain him. Believe him or doubt him. Vote for him or not. However you perceive him. And whether you support him. Wishing Prime Minister Netanyahu a successful visit to New York and the U.N. And that we won’t have to send him a cake with a hacksaw baked inside. Mamdani… stand down!

(Posted Sept. 18) Just wonderin’.  When a tree falls in a forest and no one’s there to hear it, does it make a sound?   And if Iran says it’s not enriching uranium and no one’s there to verify it, do they develop fissile material?

Now Iran just obtained a seat on the General Committee of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s General Conference – how crazy is that.  Like letting the cat guard the milk.

(Posted Sept. 15) Apparently some superheroes are against us.  But not really.  Whewww!!!   Fortunately it’s just the progressive actors who play them in movies.  Such as Benedict Cumberbatch (Dr. Strange) and Mark Ruffalo (the Hulk) as well as other minor actors not worth mentioning.  What are these misinformed thespians aligning themselves with.  Not sure they really know.  Well.  It’s with The Freedom for Marwan campaign, which pushes for the release of convicted, arch-terrorist mastermind Marwan Barghouti.  Convicted in 2004 and sentenced to five life sentences plus 40 years for orchestrating various heinous shooting sprees in Israel during the Second Intifada (2000-2005).  Killing and wounding too many innocent Israeli civilians including a Greek Orthodox monk outside Jerusalem.  As a comic book fan, and closet Batman and Aquaman (when I swim), it saddens me that these guardians of the universe can be associated with defending evil.  But then I remind myself it’s only the actors -what do they know anyway- and not really the superheroes. Unlike our own Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman), Natalie Portman (the Mighty Thor), Shira Haas (Sabra) and Liev Schreiber (Sabretooth).  All firmly on the side of good.

(Posted Sept 10) Honey cakes.  Honey cakes.  Honey cakes.  It’s that time of year.  Yummy!  Here comes Rosh HaShana 5787.  And its…. You guessed it.  Honey cake season.  That light brown loaf our baba used to make.  Starting a few weeks before Rosh HaShana and extending through Yom Kippur – a first bite to break the fast and usher in a sweet year- honey cakes are found throughout the country.  The familiar sight of the ready-made, pre-packaged, ‘assembly-line’ honey cakes wrapped in cheap cellophane found in Grocery stores.  The freshly baked honey cakes adorning window displays at local bakeries.  The exorbitantly priced, gourmet honey cake desserts offered at fancy Tel Aviv restaurants.  And of course, honey cakes festooning the festive, colorful, Rosh Hashana dinner tables across Israel.  I bake my own honey cake which is pretty good.  My wife and kids would beg to differ.  But these slightly glazed honey cakes -of my own culinary, shtetl inspired creation- are heartedly enjoyed by me as I gain several honey cake induced pounds.  Shana tova!

(Posted Sept. 8) Hoarding.  A combination of my own little wartime PTSD and some recent headlines about Iran trying to coordinate a multifront attack (is that capability still there?!) and October 7 like rumblings from the West Bank (or Judea & Samaria, depending if you wear a kippa and if its knitted and if it tilts to this side or that side -that’s a shtetl insider joke).  I digress and Yikes!  And we just had a nation-wide drill of the IDF’s top-level headquarters preparedness for such scenarios.  Double Yikes!  So ya.  I’m always checking and rechecking that we have way more than enough of some things.  The thought of entering another prolonged war and some stuff no longer available, even for a short time, scares the bejeebers out of me.   Just writing about it triggers the ‘go and buy’ dopamine hit.  Medications.  Toilet paper.  Bottled water.  Canned goods.  Also worried about the country running out of bullets.  But I can’t hoard those.

(Posted Sept. 5) An open letter to the zany and zealous mouthpieces of those delightful, anti-Israel protests held regularly in Toronto.  In the heavily Jewish Bathurst & Sheppard area no less.  Fear and harassment in the community?  Not by the hairs of our chinny chin chins.

Dear Friends.  

Are you serious.  

Sincerely,

Bruce Brown, a Zionist who does not rape children.  Who does not murder children.  Who does not eat children.  And, get this, who lives in Israel.

(Ed. note: To better understand what Bruce is talking about, go to this story on our website: Police open hate-crime investigation)

(Posted Sept. 1) Can you be more of an international embarrassment and liability?  Yes talking about Israeli’s antagonist extraordinaire and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir. 

Declaring that Israel should kill ’30-40 Gazans a day’.  Seriously?!?!  His actual statement may have been more refined and qualified.  But it doesn’t really make a difference.  That’s the takeaway.  Like whose side is he on anyway.  Talk about giving our detractors ammunition to delegitimize our little shtetl.  Hello?!?! 

And a few days later.  Showing off in front of a gallows site under construction at a high security prison.  Seriously?!?!  The death penalty for terrorists.  Right or not – I think the former.  But like can you give us reason to be compared to an extremist state.  That’s the takeaway.  Like whose side is he on anyway.  Talk about giving our detractors ammunition to delegitimize our little shtetl.  Hello?!?! 

Serenity now!

(Posted August 28) Kites.  Color.  Childhood.  Hamas and friends should watch Mary Poppins with the final kite flying scene.  Remember that song, Let’s Go Fly A Kite.  Ya, I know.  Somewhat ethnocentric.  But still….  I have fond memories of flying kites with my kids.  Down the Mediterranean shoreline in Tel Aviv.  At the Ness Tziona kite flying festival. Along the green grounds of the Weizmann Institute.  Laughing and running.  Looking to the sky with awe.  Multi-shades and fancy.  Kites.

With your fist ‘olding tight
To the string of your kite

…oh, oh, oh!

Lets go fly a kite

Kites.  Fun.  Laughter.  Innocence.

Kites.  Not an instrument of war.

(Posted August 25) How principled can you be!  Ireland -one of the most anti-Israel and foggiest countries in the EU- insisted that its government’s new, 60$M executive jet NOT be equipped with Elbit’s FalconEye navigation system, which helps pilots navigate in fog -how ironic- and other difficult weather conditions.  Without this unique system the plane must be diverted to alternative airports.  This a part of the government’s official boycott of Israeli goods. So good luck to Prime Minister Michael Martin in landing his aircraft in Dublin.  

And despite some negative sentiment towards everything Israel, Elbit achieved over 32$B in backorders with Europe driving much of its export growth.  On a more personal muse.  The morning after Iran’s first attack on Israel (April 13 2024), I woke up not with fear and panic.  Well.  Okay.  Some of that.  But also great excitement regarding an investment opportunity which developed overnight.  Actually it was the wife’s suggestion.  After Israel successfully intercepted over three hundred missiles and drones – showcasing the strength of Israel’s defense industry- my wife had a eureka moment.  What better public relations for Israel’s defense industry.  Let’s buy stock in Elbit, a key player in that ecosystem.  We did.  And about eighteen months later we cashed in.  With about 150% profit.  This is not an endorsement to buy… blah, blah, blah….

Again.  Good luck to Prime Minister Martin.

(Posted August 21) Sometimes musings are terribly sad.  But should be shared.

Happy belated birthday beautiful Ariel.  Turned seven on August 5th.  Thought about him and his younger brother Kfir and mother Shiri.  All murdered by Hamas shortly after their unbelievable and surreal abduction on Oct 7 2023.  

As I was driving home today.  “I Thank You Child” by Zakk Wylde shuffled onto my Spotify.  Always kills me, this song.  It was played by Yarden, the father who himself was held hostage, at the funeral of his family.  For Ariel and Kfir.  The lyrics chilling.  The frequent drum rolls haunting.

It was you who made living all worth the while

Oh, I thank you, my child

Comfort in your eyes 

For the warmth inside your smile

Faith’s done gone astray

It was you who made living all the while

All my fears repressed

Oh lovin’ you child it’s the best

This song.  Written almost thirty years ago.  Finds its devastating meaning today.  With the Bibas family tragedy.

How.

Listen to the song here:

(Posted August 18, 2026) And the beat goes on in the strait.  A bit quieter lately although may be heating up again with the 60day ‘ceasefire’ officially expired.  And while Iran occasionally lashed out over the last two months, they did not attack Israel.  How do you spell deterrence.  According to my Yiddisha mama, its spelled ‘Pftt.  Pftt.  Pftt‘. 

(August 14, 2026) Despite three years of varying degrees of warfare.  Moody’s biannual report of the Israeli economy was quite positive.  Basically, the report saw no pressures on Israel’s credit rating.  While the macro data remains strong, Israel still faces a complex geopolitical situation further complicated by upcoming elections (we pondered about how crazy that is in an earlier muse).  And Israeli’s inflation rate for the first half of 2026 fell to a historic five year low of 1.2% (vs Canada’s 2.6%).   As for my own pocketbook.  Haven’t had an infamous Israeli bank overdraft in years.  So all is fine. 

If that’s not enough economic voodoo talk for one musing.  According to one famous barometer.  Israel moved to second place in the Economist’s Big Mac Index.  Introduced in 1986, this tasty indicator compares the purchasing power parity across countries by measuring the price of a McDonald’s Big Mac -which most can relate to- against the benchmark U.S. burger.  So while a Big Mac in the U.S. costs $6.22.  In Israel it costs $7.67, the second most expensive place to buy the hamburger in the world,  Switzerland being the most pricey at a whopping (no reference to Wendy’s) $9.04.  While the cheapest Big Mac can be enjoyed in Indonesia at only $2.38.  Canada ranked 22nd of the fifty-four countries considered, at $5.85.  Parity.  Smarity.  I’m going for my Big Mac fix.  Just after I finish writing this muse….

(August 11, 2026) Bravo Boy George.  We certainly will dance again!  And what better way than with his new reggae tune.  Now Boy George is dealing with a hostile backlash against his just stand for Israel.  Having to withdraw from London’s East End production of Jesus Christ Superstar where he was going to play – guess it.  King Herod.  Never a big Culture Club fan, but I am anyway -as a sign of support- going to download his greatest hits to my Spotify library.  And hoping to have a chance to buy a concert ticket should Boy George perform in Israel.  Kind of reminds me of Bob Dylan’s 1983 song Neighborhood Bully.  Also in defense of Israel.  I’m going to download that song as well.  Although don’t think he was hounded the way Boy George is now.  Sign of the times I guess.

+++++

Coming clean.  I sometimes find myself chanting, to no one in particular, that snappy little ditty ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.’  Now why can’t we come up with something as catchy. With such an impressive gene pool of great Jewish songwriters. George Gershwin. Irving Berlin.  Burt Bacharach.  Carole King.  Neil Diamond.  Leanard Choen.  Paul Simon.  Gene Simmons, Amy Winehouse.  Bob Dylan.  And yes, even the Buddhist Boy George.  And still… gurnish!  No wonder we’re losing the global PR battle

(August 8, 2026) Outside Basimta Café in Central Jerusalem.  Love the red shirt against a tiny sea of black.  Not sure I am shrugging because of the ultra-orthodox uproar over a Jerusalem café operating on Shabbat or the lack of an ultra-orthodox uproar over a Jerusalem café operating on Shabbat.  For the last six weeks Israeli headlines shouted about the cafe chaos.  With the ultra-religious blocking entrances and storming the café.  While shouting ‘Shabbos!  Shabbos!’   Upsetting the secular amongst us just wanting to enjoy our Saturday iced matchas.  So the wife and I thought we would check it out.  And.  Yes.  Buy something to support the business.  Uproar.  Not.  Blocked entrances.  Not.  Storming the café.  Not.  Albeit there were police barriers separating the devout protesters from the coffee drinkers.  The protesters being just a few dozen black clad, pious Jews.  Mostly teenagers.   And yes.  Shouting ‘Shabbos!  Shabbos!’  Certainly underwhelming in its reported mayhem.  Reminds me of the famous saying misattributed to Mark Twain – “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed.  If you do, you’re misinformed.”  But I did enjoy my iced matcha.

(August 6, 2026) Here we go again.  Another round of forever negotiations.  As someone who negotiates for a living.  The way things are going in the straits.  If I had to recommend a book on the subject to a new hire.  Between The Art of the Deal, A Presidential Edition by Donald J. Trump or The Real Art of the Deal by the Mullahs of Iran with a special forward by the IRGC. Well.  I would choose the latter.

(August 3) Bravo Yoav Segalovitz, Liberal Yesh Atid MK and Monsour Abbas, United Arab Ra’am MK and party head.  For breaking a glass ceiling where a Jewish lawmaker joins an Arab political party.  No less a political earthquake in my little shtetl.  Which can significantly impact coalition block arithmetic and posturing and strategy in the upcoming elections.  Now Ra’am can be considered a legitimate ‘Zionist’ partner when forming coalition blocks and potentially pushing the ‘center left/right’ party over the 60 seat majority threshold.  In our crazy parliamentary democracy defined by a multi-party (about fourteen!!), proportional representation system.  To paraphrase Winston Churchill, Israel’s proportional representation model of governance is the best parliamentary democracy system except for all other forms of working democracies.  Stay tuned for more amateurish political musings as we move towards Israel’s 26th national election – five of them held since 2019. 

(August 1) Although both sides say they are open to diplomacy.  Neither really trusts the other.  And American military action, or its threat, continues.  I read headlines in the middle of the night -it’s a nervous habit lately– that the Dynamic Duo of Trump and Netanyahu may again strike in unison.  Possibly this weekend.  Yikes!  Prompting me, at 2:30 AM, to dash around the house stocking my safe room.  Bottled water.  Canned food.  Medicines. Documents. The beat goes on….

If it’s crazy here.  It’s insane in Italy.  With a recent online ‘Jew Hunt’ in the Milan area.  Before being removed, the digital forms urged reportings of Israelis and Italian Jews staying in local hotels.  The infamous Global Sumud Movement -yes, the one coordinating ‘peace and humanitarian’ flotillas to Gaza- was somehow connected.  Although they deny involvement?!  This deranged decree was looking to identify Zionist tourism and Zionist neo-colonization in Italy.  I’ll stick with stocking the saferoom.

Then there’s New York Mayor Mamdani, a Global Sumud Movement supporter, threatening to arrest Prime Minister Netanyahu if he comes to New York.   But since discovered he has no legal right for such a grandstanding, antisemitic, anti-Israel, anti-Western, anti-democratic antic.  Maybe Mandami should be arrested!  Or at least impeached.  For being a grandstanding, antisemitic, anti-Israel, anti-Western, anti-democratic mayor.


Here’s a post Bruce sent us Friday, July 31:
WARTIME MUSINGS

Should credible threats against FLOTUS and ‘FSOTUS’ (first son..) not be justification to attack first.

As for yesterday’s summit. Netanyahu really can’t win. Explainer. If Trump now attacks without victory its ’cause of Netanyahu. If Trump now attacks with victory its ’cause of Trump. And, in Israel, if Trump doesn’t attack -victory or not- Netanyahu failed in his eighth meeting with Trump. And if Trump does attack -victory or not- half the country will vilify Bibi anyway. Missing a permutation?

Ya. I know. Kinda’ need a definition of victory for that musing to work.
And here in my little shtetle. We go to sleep unsure if there will be a code red in the middle of the night. And if not. We wake up thinking it will be tonight. How do you define stress?

Seemed like an appropriate way to end this musing.

Bruce Brown is a former Winnipegger who made aliyah to Israel over 35 years ago. Bruce first began writing for us – in his own inimitable style, in 2012, during what was known as “Operation Pillar of Defense.” His occasional musings on aspects of life in Israel that were far from what you’d typically read in other reports from Israel were hugely popular – both in the print Jewish Post & News and on this website.
We’re now glad to report that Bruce is back writing for us – this time on a regular basis. We will post Bruce’s reports as they arrive – with the date of each post at the beginning of that post.
Here’s
some information about Bruce – and awards he’s received for his writing:

Bruce Brown.  Canadian born.  Now living in Israel (for a long time).  Bruce works in Israel’s hi-tech sector by day and, in spurts, is a somewhat inspired writer by night.  He received the American Jewish Press Association’s award for writing excellence in 2019 and 2025.  And wrote the1998 satire, “An Israeli is….”.   Bruce’s visuals are AI-assisted and created with ChatGPT under his inimitable visual concept and creative direction.  Bruce’s musings are political, social, economic and personal.  With lots of biting, contrarian, sardonic, irreverent and mischievous insights.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News