The New York Times (NYT) ran an editorial on December 27,
2012 that began this way: “Ideally, a new constitution … would unite citizens
around a consensus … The Islamist-backed constitution that took effect this week
[in Egypt] has only exacerbated divisions...” On the same day, the Wall Street
Journal (WSJ) ran an editorial that began this way: “Egypt … rammed through a
new constitution this week … at a steep price in … political … turmoil.” Coming
out on the same day, neither of these editorials could have been the echo of
the other, but being almost identical, they must be echoes of something that
has been in the works for sometime now.
In any case, when you read passages like these, you cannot
help but ask yourself: What's wrong with these editors, anyway? Do they believe
that a referendum on the constitution is a kind of wedding ceremony where it is
all kisses and pleasantries? Still, you go on to read the rest of their works
and discover that there is more which is puzzling in the Times piece that is
titled: “Egypt's Flawed Constitution”. You also discover that there is more
which is similarly puzzling to the Journal's piece that is titled: “Egypt's
Constitutional Disorder”.
While reading those editorials, you are reminded of how the
practitioners of Yoga look when standing on their heads. In fact, such posture
may be a useful thing to have if you consider the world to be upside down, and
you wish to see it right side up – something you may achieve by turning yourself
upside down. Whether or not this is the intent of the Yoga people is, however,
another matter. But mentioning the practice here only serves to give a
metaphoric support to the discussion that follows. It is that the American
media – be it of the Left such as the NYT, or the Right such as the WSJ – are
turning the world upside down when it comes to the discussion of any subject
that relates to the Middle East.
What puzzles you even more is that when you read such
editorials, you discover long before you reach the end that “group think” is
still very much alive in America. You see, for example that speaking of the
Egyptian President, the Times said this: “...the chaos he did so much to
create...” As to the Journal, it described the situation as being a “crisis of
their [the leaders] own making.” Moreover, the Times made sure to mention that
this was an “Islamist-backed constitution.” As to the Journal, it made sure to
mention that this was the work of “Egypt's Islamist leaders.” No, these are not
echoes of each other; they are echoes of something that has been in the works
for sometime now.
And both editorials ended by making the same veiled threat
against Egypt. To be fair, however, it must be said that the Times was more
subtle in that it did not mention a condition that must be met by Egypt for
revoking the threat. This is how it formulated its version of the menace:
“Egypt's … foreign currency reserves have plummeted from $36 billion to $15
billion … The country requires a $4.8 billion loan from the IMF … other aid,
from the United States and elsewhere ... is waiting on the fund...” Make what
you will of this.
As to the Journal, it formulated its version of the menace
this way: “Foreign currency reserves are $15 billion, down from $43 billion
[oops, their typo not mine] … and Egypt needs the IMF loan to unlock other
sources of foreign credit … The U.S. can help.” From here, the Journal went on
to cite the condition for revoking the threat. It did it this way: “Mr. Morsi
needs American support … His commitment to preserve peace with Israel is one
important test for [that] support.” It is to be noted that the Journal is owned
by Rupert Murdoch, the Australian Jew who now lives in America. He is also
considered under Israeli law to be a citizen of occupied Palestine whether or
not he likes it.
That approach to foreign policy has been followed by America
for a long time now despite its repeated failures. And so you ask aloud: How
much longer will you, America, remain upside down considering that if the world
is not upside down and you are, you will be seen as the odd man out? If and
when this happens and if it persists, it will result in you being ineffective
in whatever you try to achieve. But if the world is indeed upside down – as you
seem to believe it is – and you choose to be like it, you will have turned
yourself into another one of those crazies who populate a world that has gone
mad. But think about it, America, if you choose to become this kind of nation,
you will not be able to contribute to the effort that will fix the world. And
this attitude, as far as I can tell, was never a part of your vision of
yourself. Have you forgotten your past, America? Or is it that the Jew is so
overbearing, you cannot shake loose from his grip?
Whatever the answer to that question, this is where America
stands today. It is upside down looking at a world that is right side up while
asking itself: Why is the world so skewed? Some of the nation's leaders – such
as those in the media or inside the political apparatus – answer the question
by engaging in daily acts of deception that can only be described as colossal
frauds mercilessly inflicted on the self and the nation.
What these people do, in fact, is say to themselves and to
the world that the world is upside down because America has neglected to
maintain it in the right side up position. The solution as they describe it is
for them to walk the Earth while dangling the carrot of reward in the face of
those who look in America's direction, and waving the stick of punishment at
those who look in the other direction. But guess what, my friend, they have
been trying this solution for a time now, and it has consistently failed
because the conditions that come attached to the American offer reek of Jewish
interference so badly, they nauseate even the strongest of stomachs. As to the
threats America makes, well since the days when George the W was in office, the
world has discovered the middle finger of the right hand, and has learned to
wave it in America's face. In short, the carrot has been invalidated, and the
stick has been voided.
To an American who is upside down, however, the
aforementioned solution would be seen as the most generous thing his country
can do. To a world citizen who is standing right side up, that solution would
be like the anorexic character that wants to teach the world how to gain
weight. It would be like the 500 pound individual that wants to teach the world
how to lose weight. It would be like the sex addict that wants to teach the
world all about the virtue of chastity. It would be like the castrated eunuch
that wants to teach the world how to perform the duties of a he-man stud. It is
all a charade and a sick one at that.
In short, that solution would be like a dysfunctional
American Congress that never tires of telling the world shamelessly and with a
straight face it must learn to be functional. It would be like the Congress of
an America that has become a laughing stock for the whole world to laugh at. It
would be an atrocious happening inflicted on a world that never expected
something like this to happen, and knows not how to deal with it except to pray
that no destructive force will be unleashed at the end of it all.
But how did this situation come about in the first place? We
find the answer to this question by reading an article that was published on
December 26, 2012, one day before the two editorials came out. It has the
title: “Talking Turkey” and the subtitle: “As Turkey's 'chief social engineer,'
Erdogan talks up secularism and prepares the way for sharia.” It was written by
Daniel Pipes and published in the National Review Online. It is, in fact, the
sort of thing that has been in the works for sometime, and has served to
produce the echoes we heard reverberate in the two infamous editorials, and in
all similar editorials carried by the American media.
When you see that sort of subtitle, you get the impression
that it summarizes the conclusion of the writer. So you read the article to see
what could have led him to reach a conclusion that is as harsh as this. You
find that he starts the piece by describing a situation he characterizes as
being odd. It is that the menu on a Turkish Airlines flight said the food was
free of pork even though alcoholic drinks were served on that same flight. What
Pipes sees as odd is that Islam prohibits pork and alcohol, but here on that
flight, they banned one and not the other. Odd, the writer cries out, and
builds a case on that.
But as if to discredit himself, he mentions an article he
wrote more than five years ago in which he speculated on something that turned
out to have no relevance. It is that he was asking about the intention of those
who are now governing Turkey. He wanted to know if these people retained an
Islamic program or if they had accepted secularism. But as he learned from his
recent discussions in Istanbul, the Turkish people “worry less about
[Erdogan's] Islamic aspirations than about his [other secular] tendencies.” He
is a human being, after all, and has human weaknesses that are not much
different from those of everyone else.
In fact, the people in Turkey have told Daniel Pipes that
“applying the sharia in full … is not feasible in Turkey because of the
country's ... nature.” They also told him about the ongoing debate by which
they struggle to find a balance between maintaining the best of the old
traditions, and mixing them with the more modern trends. But being the Jew that
he is, Pipes ignores the speculative mistake he made five years ago, and
repeats it by again seeing something inherently evil in something that is
inherently good. In this vein, he says that the Party of Erdogan (AKP) softly
coerces “the population to be more virtuous, traditional, pious, religious
conservative, and moral.” Who is he talking about? Is it Santorum? Is it
Huckabee? Were these people coercing the population when they ran to be
president of America?
The idiot then administers to himself the deathblow by
making one statement at the end of a paragraph, by making an opposite statement
at the start of the next paragraph, and by ending the article with something
that contradicts the entire premise of his presentation. If this sounds too
stupid a mistake for someone to make it, check it out yourself. Here is how he
ends one paragraph: “Put in terms of Turkish Airlines, pork is already gone,
and it's a matter of time until the alcohol also disappears.” And here is how
he begins the next paragraph: “Islamic practice, not Islamic law, is the goal,
my interlocutors told me.” And here is how he ends the article: “Erdogan
possibly will win enough … power … to achieve his dream and fully implement
sharia.”
Stupid but mind goggling in that it was possible for someone
to make it. Consider now that this sort of toxic rubbish has been the steady
diet that was fed to the American media for nearly half a century absent a push
back to mitigate the damage being inflicted on a steady basis during all these
years.
Now you know why – try as they may – neither the New York
Times nor the Wall Street Journal could write an editorial on the Middle East
that would sound normal. It is that massive doses of toxicity have been
injected in their systems for too long.
You can only pity them for their handicap and hope that
America, as a country, would recover from the damage that the Jew has caused
it, and get back into the mainstream of civilized behavior.