If you remember the old saying: “Nationalism is the refuge
of scoundrels,” you'll appreciate the notion that the increasingly hysterical
voices accusing others of Human Rights (HR) violations are a similar sort of scoundrels.
They are the kind that would turn the lofty principle of personal liberty into
a refuge behind which to hide.
This truism comes to the fore in a stark fashion as you go
over the editorial that came under the title: “The World Bank Should Champion
Human Rights,” published on June 27, 2016 in the New York Times. Undoubtedly
crafted by amateurs, this is a piece of work that demonstrates what a hellish
agenda the scoundrels are working on at this time.
Who but a novice would start an opinion piece with absolute
assertive confidence about something, and then fails to prove his claim? Look
how the editors of the New York Times start their editorial: “Much of the
evidence supporting the emerging consensus that strong human rights safeguards
promote and enhance development has come out of research from the World Bank.”
And so you expect to read all about that evidence, but find nothing aside from
a vague reference that may just hint at such evidence.
Here it is: “Bank studies have concluded that reducing
gender inequality is good for prosperity and that communities where human
rights are violated with impunity are more prone to armed conflict.” Of course
you get more production, therefore create more wealth when women join the labor
force, but the decision of the women who choose to stay home and raise their
children should be respected not changed by the World Bank.
Also, you get more production when people work in the
fields, mines, factories and the services instead of fighting each other, thus
create more wealth. But peaceful coexistence cannot be dictated by the World
Bank; it is infused into the cultures over a long period of time, mostly by
non-bankers. Thus, women in the workforce and peaceful coexistence are economic
and political issues not discussed under the rubric of Human Rights.
Yes, politics plays a big role in that whole affair as it
does in this editorial. In fact, it is in the sham politics of this piece that
the editors of the New York Times unmask themselves as being diabolic hypocrites.
Their gruesome intent is clearly demonstrated throughout the piece. What comes out is that they do not want to
avoid armed conflict; they want to turn the whole world into a war zone.
The way they plan to achieve that much is by lashing out at
the World Bank for not setting itself as the commissar in charge of enforcing
Human Rights and then go from there. Here is a summary of their lashing out:
“Philip Alston said in a report that the bank was a 'human
rights-free zone' with operational policies that treat 'human rights like an
infectious disease.' He and other critics say the bank has failed to adopt
protocols to examine the social harm of projects it bankrolls. Labor and human
rights activists have chided the World Bank for its inadequate response to
allegations that its funding was abetting forced labor. The Bank Information
Center
With this under their belt, they mount an argument whose
content in hypocrisy renders it denser than a neutron star. Look at this piece
of work: “The World Bank was created in 1944 … it held on to a fundamental
principle: It stays out of the politics of the countries it works with and makes
decisions based solely on 'economic considerations.' That may have made sense
in the [past] but it is anachronistic today”.
What's wrong with this piece is that it flies in the face of
history. The truth is that less than a decade after the founding of the Bank,
the Jews whispered in the ear of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles who got
fired up and ordered the World Bank to refuse financing Egypt's Aswan Dam and
hydroelectric station because of purely political reasons. And the course of
history was changed.
It changed because the Middle East
was transformed from being a backwater on the world stage to being the lead
actor on the world stage. It took that role in 1956; it has retained it to this
day. As to the characteristic that best describes the Middle
East during that period of time; it is the three-letter word: WAR.
Can the Jews pull off other Aswan-like capers, thus affect
the course of history yet again? Well, the opportunities are there. In fact,
with the countries of the planet rushing to industrialize as fast as they can,
the choices are plenty, and the desire to make them is burning as ardently as
ever in the hearts of warmongers. This can be seen in the article that came
under the title: “Egypt 's
Costly Nuclear Project,” written by Eric Trager and published on June 16, 2016
on the website of the Institute for Near East Policy.
What comes out this article is that the descendants of the
Jews who whispered in the ear of John Foster Dulles long ago, have today found
a few ears in which to whisper a similar kind of calumny about Egypt with
regard to another power station – this time nuclear – that Egypt has decided to
build.
Knowing history, Eric Trager warned the habitual slanderers
whose ultimate aim is war, they should: “tread lightly. To the extent that the
nuclear project is intended 'to give hope,' any public disparagement from Washington would be
counterproductive. More to the point, the lingering distrust means that
publicly criticizing the project will not deter Cairo from pursuing it anyway,” as happened
more than half a century ago.
An argument was made to the effect that the colonial project
of Sykes-Picot led to the current situation in the Levant .
It has also been argued that the Jewish designs for the Middle
East dragged the entire region into the never ending turmoil that
was started in 1956. It is now easy to see that the plan advocated by the
editors of the New York Times is but a colonial project whose aim is to conquer
the world by first setting it on fire.