I used to frown at those who pick up the Jewish habit of
measuring the utility or the worth of an event by the way that the people they
dislike react to it instead of making their own assessment, thus reach rational
decisions based on the facts they observe and the sound analysis they do.
But then, the phenomenon of absorbing a culture by osmosis
started to work on me, and before I knew it, I started to pick up the same
habit, incorporating it in my decision making process. When I realized what was
happening to me, I started to fight the habit. I cannot tell at this point how
well I'm doing, but I hope I won the battle, and will not again let the habit
determine how I react to events.
To see an example of how that habit works, look what
happened lately. The members of Congress whose job is to make use of the vast
resources that the nation has put at their disposal to research every
situation, study it and come up with policies that react to it – stopped doing
as much in favor of doing things the Jewish way. What they do now is what they
did with regard to the nuclear deal that their administration concluded with Iran .
What they did in this case was to take into consideration
the reaction of the people of Iran
who expressed their happiness at the deal, even danced in the street in
celebration. Based on this and this alone, members of the American Congress
said to themselves and to the nation that the deal must be bad for America , for the allies in the Middle
East , and for the world because the Iranians love it. These
Americans did not even bother setting in motion the resources they have at
their disposal to gather the facts or the elements that would have helped them
reach a rational decision on the subject.
And so, it was in that same spirit that I was tempted for a
moment to pass judgment on what the country of Egypt
had accomplished by twinning the Suez Canal ,
turning it into a two-way waterway from the one-way that it was. The first time
that the temptation hit me was a few days ago when I read an account in the
media of Jewish America, that came down hard against the project, describing it
as a bad thing for Egypt and a useless one for the world. That's when I said to
myself: They hate it; it must be a good thing.
And then, I had to relive that moment again when I read a
similar account in the Washington Post; an article that came under the title: “Egypt 's 'gift
to the world' cost $8 billion and probably wasn't necessary,” published on
August 6, 2015. It was written by Erin Cunningham to which Heba Habib was asked
to contribute something because the new Jewish trick for committing deception
is to make it sound like someone with an Arab name agrees with the premise of
what they say.
But I quickly recovered from the osmotic pressure that was
squeezing against me, and I started to line up the facts and the analysis I had
done a while ago, and used them to counter the misrepresentations as well as
the desire for failure that the Washington Post was labeling considered opinions,
stuffing them into the article, and hoping that the American readers will go to
bed tonight adorned with skulls that are full of Jewish moral syphilis.
Of all the wrong things that the heavily edited article says
about Egypt
and the Canal project, nothing is more indicative of the ignorance that the
people who run the joint that's the Washington Post are suffering, than what
they say in the realm of economics. You see this clearly when you juxtapose the
following statements: (1) “construction seems less urgent for a cash-strapped
country like Egypt;” (2) “It will likely only skim a few hours off the time
vessels wait to traverse the canal;” (3) “foreign reserves plummeted and the
tourism industry suffered;” (4) “Citizens funded the project in just a few
days.”
Well, anyone that knows something about economics could have
told them that Egypt ,
which has its own currency, did the right thing when it stimulated the economy
with big infrastructure projects – the canal being one. But the best part is that
the government did not have to print the money because the country is flush
with it, most of it being in the hands of the citizens who pulled it from under
the mattress to fund the project. That's having the best of both worlds.