The Israeli Amitai Etzioni wrote an article about the
Marshall Plan for the Middle East that the
outgoing Secretary of State, John Kerry proposed not long ago, and left for his
successor to deal with. I have no views to share on that subject at this time,
and do not comment on this part of the article.
What I find disturbing, however, is the extent to which
Etzioni misrepresents the societies which he discusses, the cultures that he
mentions to make his points, and the extent to which he mutilates history so as
to create fake arguments that can support the newest agenda designed for America by the
Jewish establishment. And that's what I am discussing.
Etzioni's article came under the title: “Just Say No to
Middle East Bailouts,” published on January 23, 2017 in The National Interest.
As suggested by the title, the writer argues against Kerry's 'Marshall Plan' to
help develop the economies of the Middle East ,
a move Etzioni characterizes as bailing out those economies. And so, he comes
up with a number of reasons why America
must not embark on such a project.
Among other things, some of the reasons he cites are
sociological, some cultural, and some historical. In the sociological category,
Etzioni makes this remark: “Kerry said about 100 million children will not go
to school. Providing those kids with an education but no job prospect … is
sociologically explosive.” This means educating these children is a bad idea;
don't do it.
In fact, that's only a small slice of a larger argument that
the Jewish establishment has been pushing on the American public and elites. It
is sounding the alarm about the technological progress that's being achieved in
the Arab world. Its excuse for doing this is that the Arabs need labor intensive
industries to absorb their unemployed youth, not hi-tech labor saving jobs. So
now you have the Israeli professor Amitai Etzioni, echo that same sentiment,
saying that Arab children do not need to go to school and be educated.
As to the cultural category, Etzioni says this: “The first
loyalty of citizens in many Middle Eastern countries is to their ethnic or
confessional group––not to the nation. Thus, people tend to fight for their
tribe's share, rather than make sacrifices for the country as a whole … They
gridlock the national politics.” no, he was not talking about the American
congress; he was talking about the Arabs. But where did he get these ideas
from?
The idea of people being loyal to their tribe rather than
the whole country was voiced by a Jordanian official to explain why his country
succeeds in some political activities but not others. Because he did not
mention the splits that exist in such places as Canada ,
Belgium , even America where
the Red/Blue division is causing one party to dismantle the legacy of another,
Etzioni thought he was looking at a purely Middle Eastern phenomenon.
Undoubtedly, he is a shallow man endowed with the cognitive powers of a
fruit-fly!
If you haven't been scandalized as yet, wait till you see
what Etzioni does in the history category. He mentions the German sociologist
Max Weber who was born in 1864 and died in 1920. Etzioni must have been aware
of these dates because he says that “Max Weber argued in the early twentieth
century that a culture's values were important for understanding capitalism”.
Be that as it may, Etzioni goes on to say this: “Weber noted
the striking difference between the high rates of development among the Asian
'tigers'––China , Hong Kong , Taiwan ,
Singapore and South Korea– –and
the low rate of development in Muslim nation-states, especially those that
adhere to Sharia law”.
Did you get this, my friend? If you haven't, look at the
message I am sending to those responsible for the quality and integrity of
education at George
Washington University
This Israeli professor is a fraud. He says that Weber
mentioned Asian Tigers when the man died long before there were Asian tigers.
He says Weber mentioned Muslim nation-states at a time when most of the Muslim
world was under the occupation of European powers – not made of nation-states.
He says that Weber berated Sharia law at a time when the Germans were losing
faith in Capitalism, and toying with new ideas – Socialism and Sharia financing
among them – for possible use as substitutes.