Mad Enough To Cause Own Destruction

A Middle Eastern saying goes this way: Those whom God intends to destroy he first renders them mad. If the news that was apparently leaked a few days ago were true, God must have slated not one but two candidates for destruction. This is because the Israelis are not the only ones to ask for it this time; the Azerbaijanis were reported to have joined their madness and have asked for their own destruction.

The story is to the effect that Azerbaijan -- a country that is neighboring Iran -- may allow Israel to use its territory as a base from where to launch an air attack on Iran's nuclear installations. Well, let me tell you something, my friend, nothing could make the Iranian leaders and their military planners happier than this. The attempt will return Israel to the lines of the 1948 UN Mandate and will hand the oil fields of Azerbaijan to Iran. And all this will happen in less than a month.

For Israel to go through with that plan, it will need to transfer between 100 and 150 warplanes to Azerbaijan before the start of the operation. There is no way this can happen without the Iranians detecting it. But even if they did not, they will know the Israelis are there the moment that the first bomb will have hit them. And if they did detect the Israeli buildup in Azerbaijan -- which they will certainly do -- they will not reveal it for a good reason. Let me tell you why by giving a historical example.

When the Egyptians decided to take the Israelis out of the Sinai in 1973, their preoccupation was more Israel's tanks than its air force because only tanks allow an army of occupation to hold territory. Thus, if the Egyptians were going to take the Sinai back, they would have to cross the canal, destroy the Israeli tanks holding it, transfer their own tanks there and make sure that Israel's remaining tank force is destroyed. The problem was that the Israelis had the bulk of their tanks hidden inside fortified bunkers both in the Sinai and in Israel itself. Instead of using their own air force to destroy those bunkers and also engage the Israelis in the air, the Egyptians used a ruse to spare their air force from having to go after the bunkers, and thus be free to fully engage the Israelis in the air.

To do this, they used a double agent to inform the Israelis they were going to attack several hours before they had planned to. The Israelis got their tanks out of their bunkers early; and this gave the Egyptians the opportunity to do a good deal of turkey shoot, which is how they decimated a good part of the Israeli tank force. But wait till you see how they accomplished this exactly.

In the meantime, the Egyptians had managed to shoot down at least one third of Israel's air force which compelled the latter to stop their air attacks. The result has been what history has already recorded. It is that the Israeli commander in chief, Moshe Dayan went berserk while the prime minister, Golda Meyer had readied the poison with which to commit suicide. Lucky for them, the Americans came to the rescue by intervening directly in the war even though President Sadat had said that the Egyptians had no intention to advance to Tel Aviv.

Back to Azerbaijan. There are no fortified bunkers in that country that can house and protect an air force large enough to attack Iran and return to refuel in safety, reequip with bombs and repeat the mission sortie after sortie after sortie. For this reason, the Iranians will let the Israelis transfer all the warplanes they will want to transfer to Azerbaijan then attack to destroy as many of them as possible while they are still on the ground. But if some of the planes will have taken to the air – which they will -- and if the Israelis will have planned to attack Iran both from Azerbaijan and from Israel itself, the Iranians will be ready for them here as well. To see how they will do this, we only need to study what they do now and what they must have learned from history.

What the Iranians do now is rely on their ability to design and manufacture their own weapons. They have learned from the war with Saddam that firepower counts for a great deal; thus, they give the weapons they make massive firepower and they produce them in massive quantities. To be convinced of this, you only need to look at the number of speed boats, rockets and mines they make and deploy on occasions.

The Iranians also learned from the 1973 war that while high tech weapons are better in some situations, low tech weapons can do a better job in other situations. For example, people were saying that neither Egypt's air force nor its giant guns will be able to destroy the Bar Lev line along the Suez Canal because the line was made of reinforced concrete that was flanked by mounds of sand. Because the latter has the property of absorbing and diffusing the energy of exploding bombs and incoming shells, it would be like shooting at the ocean to crack it open. Frankly, the people who said this were correct and the Egyptians knew it too. For this reason, they did not bomb the sand; they used pumps and the water from the Canal to wash it down; it was as simple as that. This done, they blew away the concrete walls as easily as a bulldozer takes down a sand castle. It was bye bye Bar Lev before the sun had risen on that fateful morning.

Another lesson that the Iranians must have learned about the 1973 war is that the Egyptians did not use their tanks initially to engage the Israeli tanks. They wanted to conserve them for use to hold the territory after they had taken back the Sinai. Thus, they parachuted thousands of foot soldiers behind enemy lines carrying the shoulder-fired wire-guided missiles they had produced in massive quantities. The brave young soldiers who went on this mission stood up and intercepted the top-of-the-line Israeli tanks, and they took them out like turkeys.

The question to ask now is this: What could the Iranians have done to prepare themselves for an Israeli or an American air attack on their nuclear installation? Well, how about thousands upon thousands of drones equipped with radar and a television camera piloted by remote control from the ground. This would not be an ordinary drone designed to spy on people or to shoot at them; it would be a rocket propelled, extremely fast drone designed to engage an incoming warplane, spot it with its radar and shoot a rocket in its direction. If it misses, the pilot on the ground will rely on the television camera to try and collide with the incoming plane. If the latter still manages to avoid the drone, the two will engage in a dogfight. Being rocket propelled, the drone will have the advantage of speed and will most likely get the plane before the plane gets it. And if this drone does not do it, there will be another and another and another following behind it.

An operation like this can lap the entire Israeli air force for breakfast. It can also pose a serious challenge to the American warplanes stationed in the Gulf, be they on aircraft carriers or on land. And if this will prove to be insufficient, the Iranians would unveil their next surprise. They would deploy their piloted, rocket propelled suicide planes to go after enemy warplanes at three or four times the speed of sound, go after their warships and go after everything else considered being a valuable asset.

When Israel will be left without an air force, the Syrians will move to destroy the Israeli tanks and take back the Western half of the Golan they did not take the last time around. The Lebanese will occupy Northern Israel to hand it later to the Palestinians. The latter will take back the Negev and join the two parts of their country. And the Jews will be left with the Tel Aviv region as per the UN Mandate of 1948. Justice will have been done like President Ahmadinejad of Iran said he wants to see it done.

As to Azerbaijan, it will become just another Shia province of Iran, a country that will now enjoy having almost as much petroleum reserves as Saudi Arabia and considerably more natural gas.

It will also have nuclear energy; and all this will have transpired because the mad had become delirious and had destroyed themselves by their own stupidity.

The Obligation To Provide The Necessities Of Life

Can the government of a free society make laws that compel the citizen to buy health insurance? This is the question of the day, one that America is wrestling with at this time. If you were to ask that question to people living under different jurisdictions, they will each give an answer that is compatible with the laws of their jurisdiction, especially the constitutional law. And this is because all laws must be compatible with the constitution. As to the explanation that will accompany and justify the answer, it will consist of showing that the answer does not violate the constitution and that it will not cause too many other laws -- already on the books – from being overthrown.

And there lies the problem. Human laws are imperfect and this is why we amend them every once in a while. By contrast, the laws of nature are perfect but even then -- when we construct something based on these laws -- we allow for the fact that we make errors and that these errors can be cumulative. For this reason, we see the need to step back once in a while and look at the fundamentals lest we pile up the errors and create something that ends up violating a law of nature in a substantial way thus cause a catastrophe. Therefore, it behooves us that in the matter of making human laws, we should also step back from the laws of our jurisdiction and be guided instead by the most fundamental of axioms that should determine our answer to the question.

What is the most fundamental of axioms in this case? The answer to this question begins with the realization that a group of laws is made to respond to necessities, and that another group of laws is made for convenience. The first group is an instrument used by the government to protect people from each other and protect society from itself. The second group makes the system under which we live function efficiently and more equitably. Among the group of necessities is the one that obligates the parents to provide the necessities of life, such as food and other things to a child. The obligation extends to any adult that is in charge of a child or in charge of another adult who is incapacitated.

Thus, we now ask the question: Can a young parent with the means to buy insurance for the family refuse to do so and be thought of as fulfilling his or her obligation to provide the necessities of life for their children? The answer is no because if a child runs a fever, for example, it will take the parents with no insurance a longer time to decide taking the child to a doctor than it would take the parents who have coverage. And the child will suffer needlessly or even die because of the delay.

This alone should convince the jurists that yes, the government can compel people to buy health insurance if they can afford it or accept the free coverage that the government will provide for them if they cannot afford the premium. Beginning with this premise, all sorts of other arguments can be constructed to make the law on health insurance that the jurists envisage compatible with that of their jurisdiction.

Psycho-Reversing The Eunuch's Handicap

Nice try but it won't work. The trouble with what Reuel Marc Gerecht is trying to do is that he has gotten too complicated trying to do it. He wrote the article: “How Washington Encourages Israel to Bomb Iran”, and you can already see in the title that the author uses reverse psychology to say that Israel is potent enough to bomb Iran and that Washington is too stupid to restrain it -- therefore Washington is forcing Israel to bomb Iran. This line of reasoning gets worse when you read the subtitle of the article which is this: “Israel knows sanctions aren't likely to work and is increasingly aware of the poor quality of U.S. intelligence.” Here Gerecht is asserting that Israel is a brilliant little thing that is outperforming America, a giant that is afflicted with poor intelligence. And in case you want to know, all these marvels and more were published in the March 26, 2012 edition of the Wall Street Journal.

When you read the article you get the feeling that the writer is trying to accomplish several things at the same time even though they are at odds with each other. He is trying to say to the Iranians that Israel can hit them and that it will do so whether or not the Americans agree. He is trying to say to the Americans that Israel knows better than them, therefore, they should shut up and just help Israel bomb Iran. And he is trying to say to the Israelis they should keep the pressure on stupid Washington to provide them with the means to bomb the hell out of Iran because President Obama has publicly committed himself to the security of Israel, a stance from which he cannot back off – or else.

But because you know that all this cannot be accomplished at once and at the same time, you conclude that the real reason behind the writing of this article is to scare the world, scare America and reassure Israel. Gerecht is not trying to accomplish all that by the direct approach this time around because the tactic has shown not to work in the past for reasons that are baffling him and baffling all those like him. Thus, he is using reverse psychology which, when you come right down to it, is a very Jewish thing to do.

The thing is that when you construct an argument, you create a concept which, in the mind of the reader, translates into a visible sculpture. Each reader may see a different sort of sculpture but all the readers will agree that content aside, the piece is either attractive or it is repulsive. Because Gerecht has tried to communicate different messages to several audiences at the same time, he created a sculpture that must look like a deformity to every reader that looks at it. In fact, it is neither fish nor fowl but an artificial construct that is made of parts from the two in addition to parts from a few other species. In short, it is a monster. However, the main goal of the writer being that when this episode of political maneuvering is dealt with and blown over, Israel must not be left in a position where it will look like an impotent eunuch. Instead, it should look like the potent warrior who will charge again and again -- going against every potential rival that will challenge him, and take him out. This is something that Israel should be able to do with relative ease and will do by the sword of Gideon and the stone of David.

Look how the author constructs the three legged animal he eventually rides to his destination. The first leg is this: “In recent speeches, interviews and private meetings, President Obama has been trying hard to dissuade Israel from bombing Iran's nuclear facilities.” The second leg is this: “Public statements define a president's diplomacy, and … Mr. Obama affirmed 'Israel's right to make its own decision … no Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of [Iran]'” The third leg is this: “...the president has forced a spotlight on two things: the efficacy of sanctions and the quality of American intelligence … The Israelis are sure to draw attention to both in the coming months.” You may think of them as being the leg of a horse, that of a giraffe and that of an elephant -- all three attached to a body which is itself put together like a monster that lacks a head to think with.

Now that the author has an animal to ride and he is ready to go, he dismisses the American Congress which is a surprising thing to see him do given that the so-called legislature has served as a private toilet for every Jew that had a dump to get rid of or a load of urine to leak out. Well, maybe nothing of the sort was pressing him this time. In any case, instead of the Congress, Gerecht concentrates his attention on the executive branch of the government for a good reason. It is that the chief executive is the President of the Republic and also the commander-in-chief of the armed forces where the writer's attention is focused at this time.

From this point in the article to the end of it, the bulk of what is left resembles two bookends sandwiching the tedious churning of several subjects. They look like the tossing together of half-baked ideas that the author has not organized in his mind well enough to present coherently. The first bookend is this: “Even the U.S. Air Force might have difficulty demolishing (with conventional explosives) the buried-beneath-a-mountain Fordow nuclear site.” Here, he acknowledges that Israel is impotent, and says that America may be impotent as well, but he hints that the latter may someday wish to use an atom bomb to destroy the Iranian site in question. In fact, this is more than a hint; it is his own wish and fantasy.

As to the other bookend -- which is the last paragraph in the article -- it reads like this: “The Israeli cabinet still hasn't had the debate about launching a strike … But that discussion is coming soon and Barack Obama who … doesn't seem like a man who would choose war … has most likely helped Messrs. Netanyahu and Barak make the case for military action.” Here he says that Israel is potent enough to bomb Iran, an opinion that contradicts the first bookend. We are thus faced with an incoherence that begs the question: How can someone go from one position to its opposite so quickly?

Well, he can do it by rambling his way as he walks from one position to the other. Look how he does this. First, he makes this incomprehensible suggestion: “In Israel, Mr. Netanyahu and Ehud Barak may have waited too long to raid this facility; steady progress there means that the Israelis must strike if they are serious.” Here, Gerecht who lives thousands of miles away in the comfort and safety of America, chides Netanyahu and Barak for having waited too long already to start a war. Second, he tells them that if they are serious, they should still get on with the job of bombing Iran despite the apparent futility in committing this act, and despite the danger that lurks behind it.

But what kind of callous people are they who talk like this? It used to be said that by showing the horrors of war, television will intensify the sentiment of rejection that people have for war. This may be true with some people but to others, it looks like the more blood they see, the more they salivate and the larger the appetite they grow for more of the same, for more horror. These things are more animal than they are human.

To justify the insane advice he is giving, the writer begins an argument in which he tosses everything that comes to mind into a narrative he calls “the sanctions-political-chaos-nuclear-paralysis scenario,” where the sanctions that have been imposed on Iran up to now are supposed to lead to political chaos and the eventual paralysis of the Iranian nuclear project. But he says that this will not work because “Iran made around $ 79 billion dollars last year from the sale of oil.” Also, being a modern authoritarian state, it has “considerable resilience and a high threshold of pain.” He goes on to say that many observers believe sanctions will help exacerbate divisions within the regime but he disputes this premise and he argues against it. In other words, he says that Iran has good reasons to feel safe and to continue with its nuclear program.

And he ends up dismissing the effectiveness of the sanctions with these words: “Sanctions … as a tool to stop nuclear weapons aren't particularly menacing. They may have become a means to stop the Israelis, not the Iranians, from achieving their desired ends.” He goes on to say “that the Israelis know the CIA has no sources inside the Iranian scientific establishment or Khameni's inner circle or the Revolutionary Guards' nuclear brigade.” and he warns that “Iran has improved its cybersecurity since Stuxnet.” Thus, in his opinion, all of that boils down to this: “...when the administration says it has 'no evidence' Mr. Khamenei has decided to build a nuclear weapon, this really means Washington has no solid information.”

In other words, he is saying that Iran cannot be completely defeated once and for all even by the full might of the American military. And it cannot be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons in the long run if this is what it wants. Rather than seek an accommodation with it, Iran should therefore be bombed to delay a nuclear weapons program that may not be there. If this will cause the Iranians to start a program they did not have before, it should be bombed again and again in cycles of two or three years. And this is the age old Jewish dream as reflected in their bible; a book of fantasy about endless wars, gore and horror from cover to cover.

To wish that his dream be realized, Reuel Marc Gerecht concludes with the prediction that Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak will probably bomb Iran very soon. And his advice to the world is to get on with it and be scared because Israel is not a handicapped eunuch but a potent stud.

This man and those like him are very sick and dangerous to the human race. Let them not salivate anymore at the horror they unleash periodically on the world as they have done for several generations already.

There should be an end to Jewish incitement. Every one of us should stand up and say in one voice: Enough is enough.

A Hidden Hand For A Hideous Horror

On March 22, 2012 each of Naomi Schaefer Riley and Clifford D. May published separate articles in separate publications discussing, not exactly a common theme, but one aspect of a single theme. They both dealt with the religion of Islam and, of course, the Muslims who adhere to it. Naomi Riley wrote: “Defining the 'All-American Muslim'” which also had the subtitle: “The story of Islam in America today is a story of rapid assimilation and even secularization.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal. As to Clifford May, he wrote: 'Destroy All the Churches' which also had the subtitle: “Is it not news when the leading Saudi religious authority says that to terrorists?” It was published in the National Review Online.

I did not have a blank mind when I started to read these articles. On the contrary, I had a long history behind me of wondering how far the Jewish organizations will go and how much they will succeed in their drive to start a war between Christianity and Islam. I began to get a sense that something like this was going on during the decade of the Seventies as I lived in Toronto, Canada and followed the news in the Middle East as well as the news on this Continent. I then went to live and work in Montreal where I mingled more closely with both the Jews and the Arabs, especially the Egyptian and Lebanese groups, made of Christians and Muslims.

My interest in the subject began when people I knew started to say things totally out of character. I knew some of these people well, and I knew some of them casually. I knew them all to be apolitical men and women who cared much about their families and their work but cared very little or none at all about the rest of the world. They almost never watched the news and yet, here they were, talking politics and religion with the fervor of someone carrying fire in their belly. As if by a demonic kind of magic, the people I used to know were transformed into something I could barely recognize.

For example, there was the time when the American president was frequently meeting with Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel, and I wondered when he will be meeting with the Palestinian Yasser Arafat to get these two leaders to negotiate peace. I waited long for this to happen but it did not, and I had no idea why it was not happening. Then one day, I got the surprise of my life when someone that never talked politics before interrupted a conversation we were having about work, to explode in my face an anti-Arafat diatribe. A few days later, Jubilant Jews were going on television to brag about the American president who was meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister very often but not with Yasser Arafat of Palestine. I realized then that someone was whispering things in the ear of my friend, things that were not even in the news. And I saw this pattern repeated with people I knew to be simple folks but were now talking weird.

But this story pales when you compare it to what happened the day that people I knew well started to badmouth the person they used to worship almost like Jesus himself. This was Pope Shenouda of the Egyptian Coptic church whom they now wanted to replace by another Pope. The reason they gave for the change of heart was that “this Pope” was refusing to call on the Christians of Egypt to go visit the holy places in Jerusalem, a Palestinian city that was under Israeli occupation. I searched all the periodicals I could get my hands on to see if a trace of this sentiment was expressed elsewhere. And sure enough, I found it expressed in a number of small Jewish publications. And I realized that here too, someone was whispering weird things in the ear of people who were never interested in this sort of subjects.

Thus, I started a personal drive to find out how people get to be plucked from a lifelong state of satisfied and joyous apathy to be thrown into the vortex of a cause they can barely define but for which they would light up a hellish fire in the belly. It took me long to find out but I finally did. Along the way, I discovered a few more things that convinced me the Judaism I was seeing on this Continent was not the same Judaism I saw in Egypt during the seven years that I lived there. What I saw there was a religion no different from Christianity or Islam; what I was seeing here was a demonic cult that was more about hate and the quest to control than it was about spirituality or the quest to better oneself.

As if this were not enough, the offensive saga was made worse (and still being made worse) by the fact that the cult never stops infecting its surroundings and all those in it. The more I looked into the matter, the more I discovered that the cult has the ability to extend its influence in every direction like a virus spreads inside a body with no immunity to defend it. The cult, like the virus, spreads by serially infecting someone that infects someone that infects someone, and so it goes for ever and ever – and goes in every direction.

This discovery allowed me to trace the infection of my friends who frequented the Coptic Egyptian church and the Maronite Lebanese church, to the Jewish organizations that never relent when it comes to producing noise, confusion and rumors. This, my friend, is how the hidden hand of evil was (and still is) able to install its hideous horror in the two fine communities where the targets were not just Yasser Arafat and Pope Shenouda but Islam as a religion, and the Muslims as simple folks.

What must be understood here is that Islam is a religion, and the Muslims are people whom the Jewish organizations could not bring under their control. For this reason, they accused them of killing Christians in Lebanon and accused them of pressuring the Pope to prohibit the Copts from visiting Jerusalem as long as it was under Jewish control. And they injected this venom in the ears of the pliant in the hope of creating a disturbance that will allow them to get into the act and take control of the situation. This is a very Jewish thing to do; and it is the very thing that leads to the punishment of all Jews, even the good ones like those I met in Egypt.

While all of this was happening, I began to get reports to the effect that the hidden hand of the Jewish lobby in America was working to transform the military there into an army of crusaders that will someday engage Islam on the battlefield and wipe it from the face of the Earth. In fact, the lobbyists and their running dogs in the media, in the Congress and in the Administration were insidiously inserting the word crusader everywhere they could fit it. They went as far as to force the army to commission the production of a weapon system designed specifically to kill Muslims but otherwise useless; and they christened it The Crusader.

While these sordid events were unfolding, the liberal Jewish organizations were fighting for the right of Jews to live the way they want to live, and to wear what they want to wear – such as a skullcap in public, for example – something that used to offend the many in the crowd of the stiff upper lips. Thus, to add strength to their cause, the liberal Jews who were not yet thinking of converting to the neocon causes, reached out to the cause of everyone else and hitched them to their own fight. It happened at the time that the Sikhs wanted to serve in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and still wear their traditional turban. Opposition to the idea was coming from such powerful institutions as the Canadian Legion but that was no match to the power of the Jewish organizations. The latter won the fight for themselves and for the Sikhs but instead of extending the success to the Muslim causes, the Jews did the opposite.

To give an example: Muslims were calling talk shows like the CBC's “Cross Country Checkup” to say that people who come to a Western and Christian country like Canada must adapt and must learn to live according to local customs. At the same time, the Jews were calling to say that Canada's strength resided in the institution of multiculturalism, therefore the Sikhs should be able to wear the RCMP uniform and the turban at the same time. This pretty well reflected what I knew to be true about these two groups. But did the Jews defend the right of Muslims to maintain their traditions? No they did not. In fact, the media here started to make fun of Muslim women thousands of miles away who wore the traditional scarf in their own communities. This made the women here who never wore the scarf before, wear it now as an act of defiance. The result was the start of a cold religious war – just like the Jews had wished it.

Taking advantage of every opportunity that came along to add to the distrust and to the friction between Christianity and Islam, the Jewish organizations have managed to ignite a number of incidents between the two groups in places like Africa and Asia. But in reality, all this pales when compared to the religious wars that erupted in Europe between Christians and Christians, for example. But the Jewish organizations and their mouthpieces are still at it, and this is what you see in the Clifford May article, half of which is devoted to spinning what transpired between two individuals, one from Saudi Arabia and one from Kuwait.

Well, let me reveal something for the first time. In my view, it was the relationship between these two countries that started the chain of events which led to 9/11. Had I not been on the blacklist at the time, I would have written about it, warned the world and perhaps averted the tragedy. Here is what happened: Bush 41 who was called upon by Saudi Arabia to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, was defeated by Clinton. He visited Kuwait before leaving the White House, and nothing out of the ordinary happened. But as soon as Clinton was inaugurated, some people discovered by pure chance that Saddam had attempted to assassinate Bush while he was visiting in Kuwait. And they impressed upon the new president to exact revenge.

The drones were not in vogue at the time but the cruise missiles were. And so, Clinton ordered that a cruise missile be fired in the direction of Iraq. Guess where and when the missile hit. It hit the front yard of a hotel in Baghdad at the exact moment that an Islamic conference was held there. The Americans said it was a mistake and I said: like hell it was. I could see that the act fit exactly into the pattern of the war that the Jews had triggered between the religions. The war was raging, and I guessed there was going to be a response to America's act of treachery. It came less than two years later when a car bomb exploded in a basement at the World Trade Center. But because the damage was minimal, I thought there was going to be another attempt. This one came eight years later on September 11, 2001. Thus, let history show that 9/11 happened as a result of the religious war that was planned and executed by the Jewish organizations worldwide. Now read the Clifford May article in its entirety and guess what else he is trying to trigger.

As to the Riley article, she wrote it in response to the TLC network canceling a show that does not portray the Muslims the way that the critics see them. This, in turn, prompted one of the sponsors to drop their support. Now, given that the people who watch a learning channel want to learn and want to judge for themselves rather than see the critics make a judgment for them, we must conclude that the critics were none other than the Jewish organizations. They were also the people who worked on the sponsor that took their counsel. They were the people who worked on the networks that listened to them. They were the people who served as the running dogs for the Jewish organizations. And they were the people who wished to serve as barking dogs for the Jewish organizations. What sort of a country has America become?

Naomi Riley portrays the Muslims as I have known them to be in Egypt and here in North America. I have known many Jews in Egypt, as well, and they were just like anyone else. I have known Jews here in North America and while some are the same as those I have known in Egypt, the majority is of the type that does not bode well for the future of Jewry on this Continent.

Let it be known that whatever happens to them, they alone will be responsible for it because they are digging their own graves. They are digging them feverishly and digging them relentlessly.

Egypt's Economy: Convalescing But Far From Amputated

Matt Bradley of the Wall Street Journal wrote a good article on the Egyptian economy but a few points need to be clarified to make it better. The article has the title: “Egypt's Brewing Crisis: Subsidies” and it has the subtitle: “Cairo Faces Public Wrath if it Reforms Bloated and Corrupt System, but alternative Is a Budget Morass”. It was published on March 23, 2012 in the Journal.

It has been a little more than a year since the start of the revolution in that country, and about this much time that some people have been predicting the meltdown of the economy there. They wrote their predictions using negative superlatives that would give the impression the country was obliterated not by a tsunami but a meteor like the one that almost wiped out life from the face of the earth in the age of the dinosaurs. The reality, however, is that the Egyptian economy was mildly stricken but not amputated, and is now convalescing nicely.

The newly elected parliamentarians in Egypt know this, which is the reason why they are not rushing to accept the deal that the government has worked out with the IMF for a 3.2 billion dollars loan. Of course, this sum in itself is paltry compared to the 120 billion dollars worth of trade that Egypt does with the rest of the world each year. But the idea is that the moment this deal goes through, as much as 30 or 40 billion dollars will pour into the country as a result of the Deauville agreement, and all the pledges that were made immediately after the fall of the old regime.

There is also the matter of foreign investment which almost dried up for a while, and many predicted that it will not return till the IMF loan and the pledges materialize. Well, there may be a few investors waiting for that to happen but the fact is that foreign companies from Asia, Europe and the Americas are returning to Egypt. One example worth noting is that of Apache, the American petroleum company. It made a deal in Australia, an act that triggered massive and jubilant headlines in some publications to the effect that Apache was pulling out of Egypt to go into other places. Before the editors of these so-called business publications had the time to jump into the streets below and dance for joy, Apache had signed a deal of several billions dollars with Egypt to explore for hydrocarbons and develop projects that will last several decades. Other companies ranging from food processing to shipbuilding also opened new manufacturing plants in the country.

Thus, the question to ask is this: What did really happen to the economy of a country that was growing at the rate of 6% and had a revolution? To answer this question intelligently, we must begin with the premise that the Egyptian economy is one of the few in the world which are truly diversified. What this means is that it is made of all the sectors that make-up a modern economy, and that there exists a rough balance between the sectors. How is that? Well, when things were simple as they were in the pre-computer age, the economies were divided into 4 industrial sectors for the purpose of evaluation: agriculture, textiles, chemicals and machinery which also included transport equipment. And when you had an economy that hummed with all these sectors, you also had the services that usually go with them. By the time the computer had become prevalent everywhere, other sectors such as high-tech were added. The transport and equipment sector was subdivided into its two parts, and electronics was added to equipment. As to agriculture, it was combined with food processing to become the agrifood sector. But nothing is sacrosanct because other approaches for classification were invented, and they keep changing with time.

In any case, as far as the Egyptian revolution is concerned, agriculture was not touched. There have been a few demands for a higher wage in the food processing business but nothing happened there that was very disruptive. As to the textiles, there had been trouble on this labor front even before the revolution, and it continued after it but very little that is serious happened there. As to the chemicals, which are mostly the petrochemicals and include the exploitation of mines, minerals and quarries, there was no disruption at all.

This said, the serious disruption that happened in manufacturing came in the transportation sector where some of the auto assembly plants were shut down. Also, because construction suffered in the big urban centers like Cairo, Alexandria and Suez, the building material companies -- such as those in cement, steel, ceramics, doors and windows -- experienced a slowdown. As to the services, there was disruption in tourism, trade, education and in the financial services. What this did to the economy is slow it down to 1 or 2 per cent growth, but it did not send it into negative territory. And this is remarkable considering that there had been a revolution where the normal thing to happen would be a drop in the GDP of as much as 25% – a depression level.

But what is it that went on inside the mind of the idiots who almost danced in the street at Egypt's woes? What happened was that these people were too ignorant to know the difference between economic woes and financial woes. If a tsunami or a meteor had hit Egypt, had wipe out most of its plants and mines and had killed most of its labor force, the economy would have been severely debilitated or even killed, and the idiots would have had a good reason to celebrate. But none of this happened because the economy got sick for a while, and it is getting better now. To extend the analogy, you can perceive the economy as having lost some weight, it may still look sluggish in its movements but it is no worse than that.

Where the would-be street dancers went wrong is in the fact that they fantasized about a country that will soon fall on its knees, thus giving them the opportunity to remote control it financially, politically and even militarily. And all this hinged – in their tiny, little, miniscule brains -- on the foreign reserves that they knew the country had accumulated. There were 36 billion dollars in there of which 10 billion had come as a result of foreigners buying treasury bonds. Thinking that the revolution was going to plunge the country into a depression, these people cashed the bonds and took the money out of the country, which is a perfectly legal and legitimate thing to do.

But seeing the reserves diminish, the companies that usually import raw material from abroad were prompted to buy and hoard foreign currencies. In turn, this prompted the central bank to spend another 10 billion dollars to prop up the local currency. This brought the reserves at the central bank to 16 billion dollars but 10 billion are still in the country, and going nowhere. In addition, the commercial banks have huge sums invested abroad and would repatriate some of that to save the economy that keeps them in business if the need will arise. But there is no sign that something like this will happen. Too bad for those who got dressed up to go dance at the party that was never given.

Coming back to the Matt Bradley article, there are three main points I would like to discuss: the matter of subsidies, the country's trade in hydrocarbons, and its trade in the agrifood business.

First, the subsidies. The countries that experienced the Industrial Revolution two or three centuries ago went from an agricultural feudal economy to an industrial one over several generations. The disparity between the very rich and the poor was maintained because industry was largely controlled by the landowners who added to their wealth. But there was no serious disparity between the rising classes, all of which were peasants moving into the middle class roughly at the same pace. Yes, there were some frictions but these were no worse than what existed before the start of the Industrial Revolution.

By contrast, when an agricultural country begins to industrialize in an age that is already industrialized, the potential exists for the peasants who move from the farm to the cities to become much richer than those who remain behind. They acquire the purchasing power to send prices sky high, and thus further impoverish the already poor. For this reason, the government feels compelled to institute a system of subsidies where the essential staples, especially in food and fuel, can be had by everyone. It also happened that because of wars and other reasons, shortages were created in some industrialized countries where subsidies that range from food stamps to direct welfare payment were instituted. The Egyptian government looked at all these programs and has not yet found the system that would suit Egypt. But things are getting serious as noted in the Bradley article, and a decision will have to be taken sooner rather than later.

Second, the country's trade in hydrocarbons. We must understand that crude oil is rarely used in its crude form. Instead, it is refined where half the volume becomes fuels that range from the high octane gasoline to the heavy fuel oil, passing through the diesel, the jet fuel and so on. As to the other half, it is refined and separated into various chemicals that range from the wax to the asphalt, passing through the plastics, the vinyl and so on. No country in the world that has refineries uses petroleum products in the exact proportions that crude oil breaks into. For example, they sometimes use more gasoline than plastics because they have a healthy auto industry; sometimes they use more plastics than gasoline because they have a healthy construction and furniture industries. Thus, what happens is that these countries sell what they have in surplus, and buy what they are shortage of.

Egypt is no exception. It produces about 700 thousand barrels of crude petroleum a day, refines all of it, uses the products that it needs, which is most of them, and sells what it does not need, such as the high octane gasoline and some chemicals. The country also imports diesel fuel and butane gas. But what Egypt does not do is import crude oil in any physical sense. What does that mean? It means that Egypt has agreements with foreign oil companies that do business in the country and getting paid with a share of the crude. About 60% of the oil that is pumped from the ground belongs to Egypt; the other 40% goes to the foreign partner. But the contracts have a clause that gives Egypt the right of first refusal which means that the country has the right to buy the oil if it is willing to pay the world price for it. And this goes into the financial ledgers as an import even though the oil was produced locally and consumed locally.

When you convert all those numbers into tons per year, it works out that Egypt produces 35 million tons of crude oil of which 21 million belong to the country and 14 million to the foreign companies. However, the latter do not take the oil out of the country but leave it in place and get paid in cash instead. Given that Egypt also produces 54 million tons of natural gas and sells 18 million of them abroad, the country registers a net surplus in hydrocarbons and products of more than 10 billion dollars a year.

Third, the country's trade in the agrifood business. Egypt has 8 million acres of arable land which translates into 15 million acres when you consider that most of the land produces 2 crops a year, even 3 in some instances. This is a small patch when you compare it to what other countries of the same size have, but given the amount of water that is available, this is the best that the country can do. However, the smallness is compensated for by the high yield that the agronomists have been able to achieve in Egypt.

When you add to the export of the processed foods, rice, fruits and vegetables -- the export of non-edible products such as cotton, flowers, spices, herbs and furniture made of wood produced with recycled sewage water -- you find that the total sales of the country roughly balance out the total purchases in staples such as the wheat, sugar and cooking oil that the country imports.

Putting all this together, the picture that you see of the Egyptian economy is not one that should worry you unless you're all dressed up and looking for a reason to dance in the street.

The Pattern And The Connecting Dots

It is difficult most of the time to understand why bad things happen in this world. The reasons are many, one of them being that a pattern connecting a number of the happenings cannot always be discerned. But sometimes, a few happenings shine bright at the same time, and they come to look like dots that beg to be connected to each other. When this is done, the connection shows an unmistakable pattern, and this makes the whole thing easier to understand.

Two such dots shone this week. When connected together, they show a pattern that helps to explain not only what is happening nowadays but also much of what happened in times past. The first dot is an article published in the New York Post on March 21, 2012. It came under the title: “P.T. Barnum & the nuke talks”, and was written by John Bolton. The second dot is an article published in the Wall Street Journal on March 22, 2012. It came under the title: “Tolerating Hamas Invites a Mideast War” and the subtitle: “The United Nations ignores 12,000 rockets launched into southern Israel,” and was written by Ron Prosor.

What the two articles have in common is that they were written by Jewish ambassadors to the United Nations. Ron Prosor is a current ambassador representing Israel in that world body, while John Bolton was an ambassador there too who unashamedly represented both Jewish America and Israel but no one else and nothing else. The two articles also end up talking about Iran, an issue that preoccupies Israel and Jews everywhere, having started the discussion with an entirely different subject.

First, we look at the Prosor article. He starts it by quoting a saying uttered by a historian decades ago. He calls the saying a principle then chides the world because: “...this principle continues to fall on deaf ears in the international community.” Who was the historian, you ask? It was Barbara Tuchman. And what was the quote? It was this: “War is the unfolding of miscalculations.” But what the hell is this all about, you ask? To understand what the ambassador is trying to do here, we need a simple analogy. Suppose you have a neighbor who confronts you every day with something like this: Did you know that the kid across the hall was wearing brown shoes yesterday even though it was a Wednesday?

The first time that this happens, you come to think that the neighbor knows something you don't, and you feel intimidated. But then you discover that wearing brown shoes on a Wednesday is so irrelevant to the scheme of things, you cease to feel intimidated when the idiot next door confronts you day in and day out with something you didn't know before. In fact, you don't want to know what he knows because you have better things to do with your life. And this is such a Jewish thing to do, you see them do it even at the United Nations which explains why the Tuchman principle falls on deaf ears in the international community. It is that the World has had it up to here with Jewish ambassadors telling them things that contain as much wisdom as there is in the bark of a dog.

But why did he write these words to be published in an American newspaper? Because sooner or later, the Israelis will ask America for money. It used to be easy for them to do so in the old days because they had only to say gimme, and the Congress gave. But like leeches, they have bankrupted their host who must now borrow from the Asians and the Arabs to give to them. And while America is going bankrupt, and while its people are going on food stamps, less and less of them have the stomach to respond to the cries of the rabbi who appeals to their Christian generosity to help feed the hungry Jews in Israel.

These people are beginning to look like the skin on bones you used to see in the famine stricken regions of Africa, and no matter how much their leaders try to explain that this is the look of a self-inflicted anorexia, the world knows that this is the look of a famine created by leaders who spend the little money they have to kill Palestinians and loot their properties rather than use the money to buy food and feed their own people. Because of this, the ruling crowd in Israel has come to be seen the world over as less than worthy to carry the suitcase for the leaders of North Korea. Like them, they are pathetic, disgusting and criminal but in a more exaggerated way.

So then, what does a criminal do when faced with a predicament he cannot get out of? He commits more crimes, what else? And this is exactly what the Israelis have done. They sent American-made planes loaded with American-made smart bombs, and they killed a number of unarmed Palestinians in the knowledge that the latter will respond by sending a few home-made flares to remind the world that they are still being victimized by American weapons placed in the hands of a demonic culture that never relented being demonic during the centuries that it tried to impose itself on humanity but was shunned by it everywhere and every time.

And when the Palestinians sent up the flares, the Israelis yelled: Rockets, rockets -- rockets from Gaza. Oh my belly, oh look how I ache at the belly. Help me world, help me. And while they were thus moaning, they sent their American-made planes to bomb Palestinian families in their homes killing something like two dozen of them which would represent, in terms of proportion, 480 dead Syrians or 5,800 dead Americans in a single day. And all this happened at a time when not one Israeli had suffered as much as a scratch.

And why all this? Because the Palestinians sat quietly in their homes minding their own business, and the Israelis decided it was time to accuse them of something, then create an incident that will bring money they can no longer have for the asking. They looked at themselves in the mirror and saw that they aim to commit a terrorist act so as to maximize civilian deaths, and so they said to themselves that the time had come to accuse the Palestinians of planning a terrorist act. Thus, speaking of someone never heard of before, the ambassador said the following in his article: “He aimed to launch another mass murder of innocent Israelis...” and he also said this: “As these terrorists sought to maximize civilian deaths...” Like Jews always do, the ambassador accused the other of what he saw in himself and his people. This is their culture; it is their religion. This is why they are hated and have been for thousands of years. They are paying a price not because of their genetic make up -- which happens to be the same as that of everyone else -- but because they have cultivated the wrong culture, and have adopted a screwy kind of religion.

And when you are that stupid, you're stupid enough to reveal the rot that resides inside your innermost bosom not knowing what you just did. The idea the ambassador had was to accomplish two contradictory goals at the same time. He wanted to say to America: look how bad these Palestinians are, so give us the money to defend ourselves. He also wanted to say: look how magnificent we, the Jews are, for inventing an Iron Dome that is working magnificently well, so give us the money to defend ourselves. This alone is a contradiction that kills his argument but being also a mathematical illiterate, he made another big mistake.

Here is what he wrote: “In the 5 days that followed … 60 rockets per day [were launched] … Israel's new 'Iron Dome' antimissile system intercepted … 50 rockets … [representing] 90% effectiveness.” Well, my dear ambassador, 5 times 60 is 300 rockets. Having intercepted 50 of them, you have intercepted 16.7% and not 90% as you claim. And when someone spews bullshit as glaring as this, you can be certain that all the numbers he quoted were imaginary. Also, the known truth is that no antimissile system is working in Israel or anywhere in the world except the American Patriot system which, after three decades, still cannot be fully relied on.

But having speculated that one nondescript Palestinian had “aimed” and that other Palestinians had “sought”, the Israelis determined that they needed to defend themselves. “It's a simple equation” and “you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that” says the Jew. And if the world does not come to the aid of his people “Israel will be forced to respond in a completely different manner,” he threatens.

He then does something that is as Jewish as Matzoh bread; he plays the card known as the Brown shoes on a Wednesday syndrome. To do this, he looks around and points to everything that is happening around him, and he suggests that they are happening to prove he was right in everything he said. Here is how he puts it: “With the Middle East locked in a struggle ... Gaza would tip the scales … From Marrakech to Manama … the Arab world would … drop its focus … on the Assad regime...” And there is also this: “Iran understands this well … The Iranian Revolutionary Guards are funneling weapons to Hamas … a conflict in Gaza would distract the world as they take their final steps toward nuclear capability.”

We now look at the John Bolton article. He starts with North Korea, a nation that has announced it will launch a satellite into space, and do so at a time when a number of countries will be meeting in South Korea to discuss nuclear issues. Bolton does not like it because he speculates (for himself and for humanity) that the North Koreans have bad motives. This is how he expresses that sentiment: “no one doubts that the launch's real purpose is to advance North Korea's capacity to target and deliver nuclear weapons anywhere on earth.” Thus he calls these people: “profoundly unserious” and he chides the world for giving them aid instead of heeding the P.T. Barnum insight which says that “there's a sucker born every minute.”

This being one leg of his argument, and the other leg being – not surprisingly Iran – Bolton uses another saying to make the jump from one country to the other. He says this: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me dozens of times, shame on me.” The idea he propounds here is that like North Korea, Iran too has been fooling the world. Upon this, he unloads the usual accusations against Iran to come to the point where -- like his Israeli counterpart -- he speculates as to what North Korea might do now, and what Iran will likely do when it will have acquired the bomb. The things he enumerates are horrifying indeed but he does not say that even without a nuclear device, the Israelis are inflicting that same level of horror on the unarmed people of Palestine using conventional American weapons.

Someday these people will have learned the golden rule which speaks of treating others the way you wish to be treated. Only then will humanity shed real tears when Jews get hurt instead of pretending to do so while walking them to the gas chamber and the incinerator.

John Bolton should understand this simple equation by now because he has lived in the Holocaust Memorial long enough to pontificate on this simple truth which, like says his Israeli counterpart, it does not take a rocket scientist to grasp.

The Cloning Of History Jewish Style

Suppose we discover a new species on this planet or any other planet where the young are begotten and raised to accomplish a specific task; one that is designed for each individual at birth. As long as the individual follows the course for which it was designed, it is allowed to go on living and to function normally. But if the individual deviates from its course, it is cloned and made to disappear. The clone is then made to pick up the task from the point at which its predecessor left it. This would be a weird planet; don't you think? Well, we have something like it right here on Planet Earth. The thing is that the species is not a biological one; it is a philosophy of life you will find to be weird.

If you want to see how that works, you will need to look at the Bret Stephens column that was published in the Wall Street Journal on March 21, 2012. It is titled: “The Bogus Iran Intelligence Debate” and subtitled: “Ignore the media leaks. Tehran's nuke program is hiding in plain sight.” At first, you may get the feeling that this is a “Road to Damascus” sort of conversion but after devoting a little more thought to the subject, you will find that the reality is a lot more profound than that.

To set you on the road to thinking that he converted from an old position to a new one as a result of a chance encounter he had with an expert on building nuclear bombs, Stephens says the following right at the start of his article: “To better understand the debate … it helps to talk to someone who has built a nuclear bomb.” He goes on to describe that encounter and what sounds like the factors that may have contributed to his conversion. And by the time you reach the middle of the article, he hits you with this: “In other words, having a debate about the quality of our Iran intelligence is mostly an irrelevance”. And you shout it to yourself: History is dead, long live history.

But was this a conversion or was it a species of philosophy that has been with us for as long as there was a Jewish cause to fight for, and Jews like Bret Stephens to fight for it? In fact, one of the most avid participants in the debate he now calls irrelevant has been none other than the man himself, the very man that has just killed the thing. So you wonder why he did it, and his answer pops at you: “The serious question … isn't whether Iran will … It's whether Iran should be allowed...” But this is exactly what the old debate was about, for heaven's sake! Yes, he says. In fact he corroborates your observation with this: “That is the essence of the debate the Obama administration is now having...”

It is natural that when you see someone kill his own baby, you want to go back in memory to a moment when someone that looked like he enjoyed a normal state of mind suddenly flipped to a state that made him commit what amounts to a moral infanticide. Apparently that fateful moment came about when Stephens asked the bomb building expert how hard it would be to build a nuclear bomb, and the man responded that anyone can build it. This brought to the mind of Stephens the old reports that were put out by the various US intelligence agencies and by Israel's own Mossad to the effect that Iran had not decided to pursue a weapon. And then it happened that one of the most important founding fathers of the old history flipped and decided to kill his own progeny. And so he planted the following dagger in its heart: “All this sounds like it matters a whole lot. It doesn't.”

Now that the narrative of the old history is very dead and safely buried deep underground, Stephens begins to nurture the new narrative that will replace it. He does it by creating an analogy. It is the story of a drinker that is holding a bottle of whiskey in one hand and a glass full of ice in the other. What is important, says the columnist, is not that we try to guess whether he will pour himself a drink; it is to deprive him of the opportunity to do so in the first place. And this is where you shout it to yourself: The new narrative is an exact clone of the old narrative. Long live the baby narrative – at least till such time that the founding father decides to replace it with Clone the Third.

Now that he has a new baby which is an exact replica of the old baby, he goes on a badmouthing rant to destroy the old and to make a new crucible inside of which the new baby will sit, play and grow in comfort. And this is how the author of the article begins the charge against the old: “That's what was so misleading about the 2007 NIE, which relegated to a footnote the observation that...” And this is how he places the new baby in its crucible: “To have sufficient quantities of enriched uranium is … the whiskey of a nuclear-weapons program. By contrast, 'weaponization' … is merely the glass.”

Now that the baby is safe and living in comfort, it needs to be nurtured. The most important part of nurturing a baby being to feed it, Stephens does that, showing all the care of a good parent. But guess what he feeds it? You won't believe this; he feeds it the same old stuff he rejected earlier. Here it is: “And thanks … to the regular reports of the international Atomic Energy Agency, the world doesn't need to rely on spies or shady sources to figure out just how much uranium the Iranians have enriched.” Same old, same old. And this is when he comes up with the sentence you see in the subtitle of the article.

And now that he is back to square one, standing side by side with a baby that has grown muscular enough to step into the arena and do battle with him, Bret Stephens takes on the President of the United States. He throws the first punch: “The president has stated flatly that he won't allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Good. But Israelis worry...” and he rehashes the same old argument. He continues the fight by attacking the President's Administration not only because of the policy it has adopted -- one that he regards as being inferior to the policy of Israel -- but also for the way that the Administration is fighting this battle. He complains that it is done by leaks to the media.

But he throws his strongest attack yet against the intelligence community which he accuses of having ideological axes to grind when it is supposed to be neutral, and supposed to provide only “disinterested analysis” for people like himself and the Israelis who will then tell the American Administration what to do to help them grind their own ideological axes. Nothing can be more Jewish than this, of course, unless it is more of the same. It is that he has advice to give, as well as insults to hurl at America's spooks. He tells them that they should be seen and not heard from because they are like English children.

And now that he flattened the whole landscape, and there is nothing left against which to lien and make the big decisions involving war and peace -- where the weapons of mass destruction could possible be used -- he says that there is one sure-fire test by which to make such a decision. It is also the one thing that is so simple, even a spook can grasp, he adds. Here it is folks: “...consider that a regime that can take a rock in its right hand to stone a woman to death should not have a nuclear bomb within reach of its left.”

If you wonder who that may be, you only need to search the religious books to see who allows the stoning of women and who does not. You will find that the Jewish bible is full of stories about stoning women that commit adultery, and that nowhere else is such a crime mentioned, let alone accepted.

If a primitive tribe somewhere in the world that may have been “educated” by Jews is still practicing this crime, it should be uneducated and reeducated to do things differently. In the meantime, the religious fanatics in Israel are multiplying, and they are forcing a return to the ancient abhorrent practices. They may well revive the practice of stoning women.

For this reason, like says Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal, we should keep an eye on Israel and not on Iran.

From Eco-Terrorists To Rights Advocates

A totally useless piece of intellectual rubbish was drafted under the title: “Don't Return to Business as Usual: Link Foreign Aid to Democratic Progress in Egypt” and published in the Huffington Post on March 18, 2012. It was written by Neil Hicks who is associated with an outfit that calls itself Human Rights First. And so we ask: What the hell is this all about? To answer the question, we need to go way back to the beginning.

There was a time when kids used to join in droves organizations that pretended to protect the environment. They were mostly lazy and little educated kids with no apparent talent who nevertheless wanted for themselves the fame if not the fortune of Rock stars. Pretending to do something for a good cause such as help the environment gave them a roof over the heads if only a temporary one, gave them a ship on which to sail away if to an occasionally dangerous destination, and gave them a sandwich to eat every once in a while. But they felt they belonged to a group at long last, they were more respected than their panhandling days and they could look forward to a tomorrow that may be better than today. Their motives may have been dark, as you can see, but their movement was new and this caused only a handful of people to ask the right questions about them. And so they were tolerated by society.

These, however, were not the original people who started the movement to protect the environment; they were what you might call the second wave. In fact, the motive of the people who started the first wave had been an even darker one. It all started in the decade of the Sixties in the Twentieth Century when the GDP of Japan – a loser in the Great War -- was seen to surpass that of Great Britain, a winner in that same war. Some people in Britain who could not imagine their country being less wealthy than Japan became upset, and they searched for the reason why Japan was succeeding so nicely. Instead of attributing the Japanese success to the discipline, the determination and the hard work of the Japanese people, they attributed the success to the fact that Japan was getting “free food” from the seas. Amazingly, what the Brits thought they had discovered was that the Japanese were becoming rich because they hunted whales for food.

This discovery told the British group that they had found a way by which to suppress the Japanese economy and thus give Britain a chance to rise again to a position superior to that of Japan. To get there, the group started a movement you may call the “love a whale and hate a yellow belly” movement. Under its rules, members of the group and their followers attacked the ways of Japan and the Japanese people every which way they could. They concentrated on the world leaders whom they incited to do something never done before. They asked that the world institutions -- having any level of jurisdiction over the matter -- be activated and made to look into the Japanese practice of hunting whales. The aim was to find a way to curtail the practice if not stop it completely.

The Brits had a few successes in that the Japanese were called upon to attend world forums to explain and to account for their practice. But this effort resulted in very little being done to curb the Japanese fishing activities despite the fact that the number of forums multiplied, and the sittings became longer in duration. Frustrated, the Brits started to confront the Japanese who came to attend the forums. They threw blood and shouted obscenities at them as they walked from the car to the meeting halls. After a while, this sort of tactics became objectionable in the eyes of the public, a development that caused the Brits to rethink their approach.

They decided to do things differently intending to escalate their confrontation with the Japanese. What they did was ask that people come forward and donate money. They received enough of that to buy ships which they sailed to meet the Japanese whalers on the high seas and confront them there -- sometimes violently. This made heroes out of them and motivated other young men and women to seek membership in the movement. This, in turn, created a second wave of activists who not only agitated on behalf of the whales but also worked to save every aspect of the natural environment. The green movement was born but had not yet been christened with this name.

Different people with different outlooks on life then came along and began to create organizations that advocated other causes; and young activists rushed to join them left and right. Chief among the new causes was that of human rights but it was not the only one as the landscape was filling with organizations bearing all sorts of stripes – social, political, religious and the like. The thing is that all these organizations competed for attention and for donations. Eventually, they all discovered that to obtain what they wanted, they had to get media coverage -- and to get that, they had to do extreme things publicly.

Meanwhile, the people who purported to defend the environment were beginning to lose their financial backers, and so they resorted to the practice of ecological terrorism (ecoterrorism) by which they set out to hurt the people whom they said were damaging the environment such as the logging companies, for example. As to the people who purported to defend human rights, they were sought after by interests that offered to back them financially but with conditions and with strings attached.

What is important to understand here is that the authentic and legitimate cause of human rights began in the United States of America by people of African descent whose ancestors were brought into the country as slaves and were themselves still segregated and still discriminated against. The reality is that the cause of these people was a natural one, preceding that of the other groups by several decades and having almost nothing in common with them. Another distinction to be made here is that the struggle of the African-Americans was different from the struggle of the people in other continents because those in America were not out to liberate their country; they were out to become full citizens of it.

The struggle of these people was different from that in South Africa, Rhodesia and Palestine because the White oppressors in America were alien to the land as much as the Blacks themselves were alien to it. Also, whereas in Africa and the Middle East, the oppressors were invaders that came to colonize the land of an indigenous people, the indigenous of America whose skin color was closer to red than White or Black, were all but forgotten while the newcomers fought to forge a working accommodation by which to insure the installation of a system of equality under which everyone was to receive a share of the pie.

All the while, a few other things were beginning to change in America. For example, the fact that the slaves and their descendents were exploited because they were different, gave new ideas to some people. They thought of ways to highlight their own differences thus claim they were discriminated against and deserving of a special accommodation with the rest of society. This is how the causes of human rights (civil rights in America) proliferated to the point that the Supreme Court threw its hands up in the air and asked the people to stop asking it to find new rights on which to adjudicate. But there were some beneficiaries, and the biggest of these were the women who had been fighting for their “liberation”. More than anyone else, they managed to ride the momentum generated by the African-Americans, and they reached their goal long before the Blacks had been liberated from segregation and from discrimination.

Exploitation is so American there would be no America without it. From the moment that the newcomers to the Continent began to exploit what used to belong to the natives, waves of newcomers came to exploit – in their own little way -- the existing setup, or be exploited by it. One particular wave that came to America after the Second World War of the Twentieth Century were the Jewish immigrants whose penchant for exploitation germinated and bloomed in the New World faster than it did anywhere else during the centuries that the Jews roamed the Planet in search of people and situations to exploit.

What is different about the Jews is that their technique consists of studying the psychological soil of the culture with which they came to interact before they threw onto it the seeds of their exploits. What they found in America was extreme toleration for exploitation but only as long as it was done within the rules, however poked with loopholes those rules may be. The Jews also found that the American desire for exploitation had a hidden side. It is that the Americans are so terrified of foreign competition, they view as a potentially dangerous juggernaut anyone that does not come under their legal jurisdiction. In their mind's eye, they will either win the fight or lose to the foreigner, will lap him for breakfast or become his lunch, kill the competition or be killed by it. Thus, live and let live is talked about in America but almost never practiced.

To eliminate this threat, the American would want to remake the world in his image. He will want to extend American law to a foreign land where it will be feasible and when possible to protect himself from unfair competition – or so he will claim. But the truth is that the American will never tolerate someone running away with an idea lest the idea grow into something so big, he will never catch up with it or respond to it effectively. In fact, one telling moment came when the Soviets launched their Sputnik into space, and a number of Americans questioned the right of these people to invade what they saw as being private American property. They later satisfied themselves by calling the moon American cheese.

And this was the psychological landscape in which the Jews planted their seeds of exploitation. They became the lawyers who infiltrated both the Congress and such outfits as Human Rights First. They made the laws in the Congress to serve their numerous causes, and they used the human rights outfits to force the executives in the Administration to implement those laws. This is how and why you see Neil Hicks begin his article like this: “The [Obama] administration must decide, pursuant to the 2012 appropriations law, whether … military and other foreign assistance can be paid over to the Egyptian government.”

To America and its people, to Egypt and its people and to all of humanity, the rest of the article is not worth a dog's poop. Look at this passage, for example: “Now is not the time for giving Egypt's current rulers … the U.S. government's seal of approval. That is exactly how the release of U.S. aid would be seen by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces...” No, no -- what is exactly false is the pretense that Hicks and company of idiots know something that no one else knows. They have no idea how the Council in Egypt will view America's gesture, period. Moreover, no one needs a bunch of lawyers who could not earn a living practicing their profession honestly, taking up the cause of someone that never hired them while being paid by a piper with a tune to orchestrate them and a string to gesticulate them.

Look at this other passage: “The U.S. government should not delude itself that it can protect its strategic interests...” In fact, the reference to self-delusion was started by John Bolton, the notorious operator who has been getting 50 million dollars a year (almost a billion since the start) -- extorted from the American taxpayers to run a place he calls the Holocaust Memorial. He practically lives there, a place of horror powerful enough to turn anyone into a self deluding and dangerous mental case. Bolton dropped the expression about self-delusion, and as always, dogs of the same taste gathered to lick from it. They were all afflicted by the same diarrhea, and they went crapping it everywhere, be it on the airwaves, the electronic media or the printed material.

Another theme you see repeated by these same running dogs (to revive a saying from the days of the Cold War) is that they now advocate a strategy not of “swagger, kick an ass and display your stiff erection” but of pursuing the gentle approach of the pussycat. Thus, they recommend that by adopting: “A phased roll-out of the annual aid package … the U.S. government could have the flexibility it needs to respond to the challenges...” Indeed, you now see them recommend this same gentle approach when it comes to dealing with the Chinese who have cultivated a powerful influence in Sudan, Syria and North Korea where America used to gently persuade but is now seen as no more worthy than the fart of a Jewish dog.

From Seeds Of PC To Trees Of Incitement

He wrote this: “The camera did not answer, so I will.” This self-designated substitute for a camera is Clifford D. May who writes a column for the National Review Online. On March 15, 2012 he wrote a column under the title: “A Guide for the Perplexed Fareed Zakaria” to which I am not going to respond because what we have here is a debate that must be played out by the two antagonists, or end here if that is their choice. My interest, however, rests in the probing of the mentality that powers the contemporary Jew when he gets gripped by Zionist ideas. And because I have detected in the Clifford May article a facet of the mentality I never discussed before, I shall do so now.

What is shown in this article is how a demand for political correctness (PC) which starts small like a seed grows to become as big as a tree. In fact, the rabbis who decades ago used to whisper the supplication: “Please be aware of Jewish sensitivities” have managed to give to their successors a megaphone with which to blare the command: “bomb, bomb and bomb again, after that go ahead and bomb some more.” It was possible for the rabbis and their secular successors to accomplish all this because if you made a remark that was no worse than hint that the Jews were getting more than their fair share, you would be labeled an anti-Semite that is out to incite people against the Jews. And you would be accused of engineering a holocaust aiming to kill millions of Jews the way that Hitler incited the Nazis to do just that.

Because no one who wanted to respond to this sort of nonsense was allowed to, the Jewish approach of taking something as small as a seed and grow it into something as big as a tree became the vehicle by which the bellyaching crowd was able to portray any criticism of Israel as a call to annihilate the Jewish entity, and by extension annihilate the “Jewish people.” This trick then mutated to cover the international stage because the bellyachers latched on to every word that was uttered by a foreigner, and they said that it meant to advocate the annihilation of Israel and all the Jews. And this, in turn, is what started the practice of embroiling America in endless foreign wars.

Clifford May is a member of the crowd that never stops bellyaching. He quotes foreigners and howls the pain in his belly. He does it in his articles and, to give an example of what he means, he quotes the Iranian president. This is what he says the Iranian president has said: “We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance and the Islamic world...” There is a good reason at this point to ask: Where did that come from? There is a reason because the Muslim world -- which includes the Arabs, the Persians and dozens of other races – have complained about the notion that a “clash of civilizations” was said to exist between the Muslim world and the so-called Judeo-Christian world. And who was it that said such a thing? It was the Jews who had the temerity to call themselves historians.

It was, therefore, inevitable that the Iranian president should respond by characterizing his opponents as being the World of Arrogance. Nothing can be more rational, more civilized and more tame than this. And so, when Clifford May and his bellyaching crowd howl about that response, our response to them should be to display contempt and no less. But May does not stop here. He continues his quoting of the Iranian president with this: “...Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? You had best know this goal attainable, and surely can be achieved.” This is no different from Khrushchev telling Nixon “we will bury you” when Nixon suggested there was a clash between capitalism and communism. Why then does the Jewish bellyaching crowd bellyache every time that someone responds to their challenge with a similar and equal challenge? Well, I have an answer for that. It is because they are who they are, and we allow them to bully us instead of saying to them: enough is enough; this far and no more.

To see why it is important to force these people to stop behaving the way they do, we only need to look at this passage: “One way to start would be for President Obama to speak directly to the Iranian people. He would say how much he regrets the suffering caused them by the economic sanctions implemented so far and still to come. He would make clear that the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of those who rule Iran...” What comes after that? you ask. This is what comes: “He would say without equivocation that he intends to do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran's rulers from resting their fingers on nuclear triggers.”

What the author is doing here is demonstrate, despite himself, that mission creep always starts like a seed of nice sounding words to then grow and become a tree of calamity. Look again at that passage and see how he asks President Obama to speak directly to the Iranian people knowing full well that no more than a handful of Iranians will listen to the speech, and none will give a hoot as to what is being said. And when this is all said and done, says Clifford May, the war on Iran should start because the Iranian rulers must be prevented from “resting their fingers on nuclear triggers.”

But how will we know that the Iranians have their fingers on the triggers? Oh well, he doesn't say how because if he did, the mission would not be that creepy, would it? You see, my friend, it is already known that while America says no bomb will be allowed, Israel says no capability to have the bomb should be allowed. Thus, the moment that the President will be finished saying what he is asked to say, the hordes of professional bellyachers will come out of hiding and howl in unison, as they always do, these immortal words: “You've gone this far already, Mr. President, it only makes sense that you go all the way to the end and launch the promised war.” It is mission creep after all; and it happens all the time. It happens over and over again, and America falls in the same trap each and every time. It is pathetic.

As an aside and just in case you wonder if someone named Clifford May can be a Jew through and through, look at this passage: “He [President] would add that he … looks forward to the day when sanctions can be lifted and Iranians can be helped to achieve peace and prosperity.” This is exactly what you see them do in Palestine. They have their boot on the necks of the unarmed people of Palestine, and when the world pressures them to lift it just a little, and the Palestinian economy starts to bloom as a result, the Jews rush to attribute the credit to themselves saying that they helped the Palestinians -- to which the world responds in unison: Shut up, you filthy dogs!

Clifford May is a Jew, alright, but this does not mean he is a Hebrew or a Semite. And so, he goes on to do something very Jewish in the contemporary sense of the word. That is to say, he goes on to make a mountain out of a molehill; to grow a good seed into a malevolent tree. Here is how he does it this time: “...he [President] would answer the question posed by the protesters on the streets of Teheran in 2009: 'Obama, are you with us or against us?' … Why would Obama not do this? And why, by the way, does that question not perplex Fareed Zakaria?”

Zakaria may or may not want to respond to that remark but I have something to say about the mentality that generates this kind of nonsense. I begin by citing the fact that a group of natives here in Canada have gone to the Iranian embassy in Ottawa and have asked for support – if only a moral one. There are also Jews who do not believe that Israel can be established before the advent of the Messiah, thus they view the existence of the state of Israel as an affront to the will of God even though they live in it. As to America, there are people in it who don't have the money to heat their homes, and so they asked for and they receive heating fuel oil courtesy of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez who did not take advantage of their plight to incite them to do anything illegal in their country.

The big point is that every country has its dissidents, which makes it so that every head of state who wants to mouth-fart the Netanyahu gas the way that the W used to do, has the opportunity to do it. But is this the world we want to live in?

Not me. Nothing is more sickening than watch grownups stand in safety miles away from a dangerous situation and encourage young people to keep fighting what in most instances are lost causes. These disgusting cheerleaders may look like grownups but they can only be incomplete men and women.

I hope President Obama never gets to be so diminished as to join them.

Congressional And PBS Horror

A film was made about the Lord Resistance Army (LRA) in East Africa and went viral on the internet as the expression goes. This brought memories to me, some of which go back a few years and some a few decades. Because I did not write on this subject directly since I started the current website, the memories that came to the surface were spotty but they fit into a general pattern that indicated they were mostly related subjects. There were some oddities however. In fact, the memory of a few odd incidents came up as well, incidents that I could not see how they would fit into the pattern. Also, I could not at first understand why my sub-conscience (if there is such a thing) was insisting that a relationship existed between these odd incidents and the general pattern.

My dealings with sub-Saharan Africa began when, at the age of one and a half years, the great war was coming to an end, and my parents decided there were opportunities in Ethiopia they should pursue. Off they went, taking me and my brothers (my sisters were not born yet), and where my father met with success. I remember two things from my early childhood. One was probably the first moment that I felt anxiety, a moment of which I have a photograph to remind me of. It shows a child of maybe three years of age sitting on a horse. I don't remember a thing of that day except that I was left alone on the horse (for someone to take the picture) and the animal moved one step. I felt anxious and I still remember that feeling. Other than that, life in Ethiopia has been a very pleasant one during the years that we lived there. In fact, the other thing I remember is my mother telling anyone that asked, how the Ethiopian people were the most gentle and most helpful people she ever met. And this notion stayed with me as I was growing.

Eventually, we went back to Egypt in the mid-fifties after a stay of various durations in other places. It was then that I began to hear of strife, insurrection and tribal wars in Africa, something that did not make sense to me because I had grown with the idea that the Africans were not capable of violence. I was a teenager by then, an age at which other things preoccupied me, and so I paid little attention to world events and to the unfolding of history on the Continent. Seven years later we came to Canada. It took us a few years to get established after which I put myself through college working only part-time when I could afford it or full-time when I needed to replenish my bank account.

Things occur in college that you do not expect. One of those happened to me when I was taking a course in African films. What was shown to us were mostly newsreel footage about Africa, and documentaries that, in most part, depicted the ill-treatment of Blacks in South Africa. But there were a few exceptions, especially in West Africa where they made some excellent docudramas. In fact, a number of filmmakers from Senegal were invited to come to Canada and stay on campus during the week that their films were shown. Since I was living on campus, my professor asked me if I would accompany them and show them around when we were not in class or in the projection room. I said yes and took advantage of the situation by conducting interviews with them which I used to write several articles.

I also compared notes with them having lived a number of happy years as a child in East Africa. This is when I learned that my experience was so removed in time, in space and in circumstance from theirs, the two experiences had very little in common. Not only that, but one of the Senegalese had also lived in East Africa for a while, and he had horror stories to tell about White missionaries that went to the Continent for one reason only; to sexually abuse little Black boys and make pornographic films about them. The subject was so shocking to me and to them, we could not dwell on it long enough for me to gather enough details. All I could tell was that what happened to that man and to his friends was much worse than the footage and the documentaries I saw about South Africa.

A few years after that, I was out of college. Africa came up to my consciousness again when oil was discovered in Nigeria which is in West Africa, and a civil war erupted there. A province called Biafra became the focus of attention because unimaginable horror stories were coming out of there. Only then, did I understand the rage that was exhibited in some of the docudramas made by the filmmakers in neighboring Senegal. A few of the stories they told in their films dealt with the White man's exploitation of Blacks, and what was happening in Biafra looked like a replay of that scenario, situations akin to what those men had lived through in their own country.

I kept up with the developments in Africa since that time. Most of what I saw and heard was sad news but there was nothing I could do about it except refuse to associate myself with anything that would aggravate the situation for the people who live there. In fact, I received an offer at one time from a group to work on a project related to the Sudan, and I refused it on the spot despite the fact that I was desperate to have work in the field. What the group wanted to do was the exact opposite of what I knew was the truth. I knew that missionaries from England and from North America were buying and selling slaves in Sudan, and yet what the group was asking me to do was to work on a documentary that said the Arabs were the culprits. I suggested instead that we do a film about the Lord Resistance Army whose members were committing the sort of pornographic horror that the filmmaker from Senegal was saying happened in East Africa. And this suggestion of mine convinced the group that I should remain on the blacklist.

What I found disgusting over the years is the extent to which fanatic Jews and fanatic Christians from pedophile America got involved in the subject of Africa and took ownership of it. Their aim has been to kill the truth and to create an alternate reality to further their goals, especially after the discovery of oil in the Sudan. I could see Biafra playing itself out all over again. As it happened, the demons and their cohorts got hold of prominent people such as actors in their prime who seek accolades for something they can do outside their profession, and aging actors who will do anything to stay in the limelight for as long as they can while watching their star fade away with age. Those demons worked on the media and the US Congress to keep the Lord Resistance Army in business, keep the tribal wars going in Africa, maintain the exploitation of that Continent and get their share of the wealth and the sexual gratification they crave.

These were the memories that came to mind when the film about the LRA went viral on the internet. But then something happened, and what seemed to be unrelated subjects began to knock at my consciousness. There was a story I was told long ago but found too trivial to pursue at the time. It was the story of a televangelist that the Jewish organizations could not bring under their control the way that they did when they blackmailed the televangelists who had a skeleton in their closet. And so they played the trump card on this one. What they did was to get one of those low-life, stinking creature and dog-like, maximally disgusting and filthy prostitute in the United States Congress to threaten that he would trigger an investigation on the televangelist thus ruin him in the process if he did not relent and do as commanded by the Jewish organizations.

Eventually, the televangelist relented and did as he was told. It was to go to Israel, meet Netanyahu and praise him like a God while asserting at the same time that Israel belongs to the Jews and not the Palestinians. And yes, there is one more thing to reveal here; it is that the televangelist is of Palestinian origin. The whole episode was filmed by an ever present camera crew, and was shown in the synagogues and the basement of churches where the Christians who call themselves friends of Israel gather to learn of the many splendid ways by which to prostitute themselves and teach their children how to worship the Jew.

At first, I could not make out why this subject was retrieved from my memory. And then it clicked. It was the fact that when the film about the LRA was going viral, the Jewish organizations found it necessary to play their trump card again. And like before, they called on the low-life, stinking creatures and dog-like, maximally disgusting and filthy prostitutes in the United States Congress to trigger an investigation on the Sudan where the LRA did commit and still does the horrors I was told were being committed by pedophiles disguised as Christian missionaries.

The aim here is to create the noise that would dampen the effect of the LRA film, and to divert attention away from the horror that is plaguing Africa today. And if you want proof that this is the intention, suffice it to say three letters: PBS. Only this anti-Arab, anti-African virulent arm of the Jewish propaganda machine took up the story of the congressional investigation regarding the Sudan and ran away with it.

This alone should tell you that this whole stinking charade was organized by the Jewish organizations.

The Rapid Poisoning Of Uncle Sam

I did mention on a couple of occasions the guy I once knew who, talking about “them” in the media, would say: They keep fornicating (he used another word) us in the eyes and ears, and they leave their syphilis in our sculls. At other times he would say they transplanted a dick in our heads and they keep ejaculating instructions telling us what to do. But I never had the occasion to demonstrate how this might work in real life because I did not have a concrete example I could discuss in detail. I do now.

Eric Trager who is a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy -- one of the most damned septic tanks parading as think tank – wrote an article: “Caught in Egypt's Political Cross-Fire” and had it published in the New York Times on March 14, 2012. When you read it casually without using a critical eye, you find it to be placid, lukewarm and inert on the surface which is probably how most people will read it. But in reality, this article is infernal in its goal. It is the poison that is slowly transforming Uncle Sam into a zombie of the Frankenstein model, a creature programmed only to respond to commands that come to it from the Judeo-Israeli propaganda machine.

The article discusses the foreign organizations that were caught operating illegally in Egypt. You no longer detect in this piece the shrill hysteria that used to fuel earlier discussions on the subject. Instead, you find this: “The prosecutions targeted the Americans, but they weren't really about them.” With this sleight of hand, Eric Trager has managed to wipe clean the historical tidbits that were left on the table and proven false given that they were the work of amateurs. Having cleared the deck, Trager then prepared it for the brand new history that he started to write, having in mind new goals specifically suited to the new circumstances.

Relax, he says, the way things are done in Egypt may have changed a little but “...the crisis didn't change America's core interests in Egypt.” And he makes it clear that instead of dealing with a single player the way it used to be, America will from now on have to deal with multiple players, thus: “Washington [should] develop a strategy for persuading the various political forces in Egypt to cooperate in pursuit of those interests.”

To develop a new game plan, however, he finds himself compelled to first admit to something that the amateur shrill voices of hysteria used to deny vehemently. Here is what he says now: “Both institutes, which Congress founded in 1983, train political parties … The support they offer dissidents … leads to … claim[s] they violate the host country's sovereignty.” Even though he is no longer denying that something happened, he still minimizes its gravity. But the reality is that these would not be empty claims because to support the dissidents of a country is by definition to violate the sovereignty of that country. And this is what the dispute was all about.

He now describes his new game plan by doing something that is as Judeo-Israeli as moral syphilism can ever get. He invents a whole new history to suit his new purpose, and he does it by first attacking someone. In this case, he attacks Fayza Abul Naga who is Egypt's iron lady, the minister of planning and international cooperation, whom they used to say was in cahoot with the Egyptian military. Not anymore because the new and improved history requires a new and improved truth, therefore, you get this: “By many accounts, Egypt's ruling military … was unaware that the prosecutor had placed travel bans on American … workers.”

And this is where he takes a few paragraphs to rewrite history after which he comes back to his original point and the goal of this whole exercise: “The fact that the Americans' ordeal wasn't really about them but about Egypt's own internal power struggle leaves American interests in Egypt essentially unchanged.” Okay you say, but what is America's interest? you ask. And he gives you an answer, but no matter what lofty words he uses, it remains that America's interest in the Middle East has been reduced to only one; maintain Israel on the life support system without which it could not survive on its own more than a few months. Here is his complete answer: “The greatest interest remains ensuring that the next government maintains Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel, counters violent extremism and upholds pluralism and minority rights.”

He now reveals his hand as to why he played the game the way that he did and why he rewrote history the way that he did: “But to avoid being trapped as a pawn among Egypt's squabbling parties, Washington should condition future economic aid to Egypt on an agreement by all parties to respect these interests.” Instead of dealing with only one party, America must learn to deal with several parties, he says, it is no more difficult than that. But to an observer, all this looks like intellectual masturbation of the most Jewish kind at the end of which comes the ejaculation in Uncle Sam's scull. Here it is: “There is good reason to believe that this conditionality could work: Egypt is approaching bankruptcy, and Washington has unique leverage over Cairo through its influence in international financial institutions.”

These are the words of someone who is totally ignorant about economics, history and social science. In economics, consider this: At most, what Egypt needs to fix its budgetary problems is 10 billion dollars. With a population that is only 4 times as large, America needs close to 2 trillion dollars (200 times as large) to fix its own budgetary problems. In history, consider this: America tried that same trick on Egypt. In the end, Egypt got its Aswan dam and the hydroelectric power station while America got scorn. In social science, consider this: The people of Egypt have said to their current and to future rulers they must stay away from America so long as that country will continue to stink the Jewish moral syphilism of barking idle threats. And Trager knows this because he said it himself that America is at this point in time very unpopular among the Egyptian masses.

Never before have so few so morally mutilated a culture that is this massive and this diverse at such a rapid speed. The devil and his army must be allied to them.