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.