The American dollar is beginning to show signs of aging and decline as did the British pound before it and the currencies that climbed to the top of the heap throughout history then fell from grace to be replaced by another currency. And the consequence of the dollar’s demise has been that a number of nations expressed concern about continuing to use it as their reserve currency while organizations such as the United Nations suggested that something be done to find an alternative to the dollar sooner rather than later. But to ask that the nations of the world drop the dollar in favor of another currency is pointless at this stage of the game because what we must do instead is explore different ways to conduct the business of the world without having to rely on the currency of one nation.
But before we do that, let us answer these questions: What is a reserve currency anyway and how does the currency of one nation get to be it? Well, the best way to answer these questions is to take an example and discuss it. Here is one. Suppose a wealthy individual in Turkey decides to have a yacht custom-built for him in Egypt. He finds the company that will build the yacht and discusses with their representative the design he has in mind. Now comes the time to negotiate the price and the mode of payment. The Turk wants to pay the full amount in Turkish new liras when the yacht is delivered but the Egyptian expresses the concern that Turkey went through a period of hyperinflation only recently at which time the old currency was scrapped and replaced with a new one.
Reminding his customer that it will take a number of months to build the yacht during which time the history of the lira may repeat itself, the Egyptian asks to be paid in Egyptian pounds. At this point the Turk voices his own concern about the large amount of foreign direct and indirect investments that pour into Egypt these days, a reality that is combined with the almost weekly discoveries of gold, oil and natural gas made in the country. The Turk says he fears that this will send the pound soaring, and if he agrees to pay in pounds several months from now, the currency translation will cost him a great deal more than he bargained for.
Faced with these difficulties, the two sides decide to conduct the transaction in American dollars which they still regard as a stable currency. Of course, they could have chosen the Euro, the Yen, the Yuan, the Swiss Franc or any another currency they consider stable but they settled on the dollar because it was familiar to them and it is available on demand almost everywhere even now.
Imagine this sort of scene taking place around the globe thousands of times a day and you will see why the people in business and the banks that serve them want to keep an adequate supply of American dollars in their vaults. This answers the question as to why the dollar is the de facto reserve currency of the world but if it looks like the dollar is about to suffer the same fate as the Turkish lira and be devalued, the people who hold large amounts of it begin to worry. Of course, they can dump the dollar but to do so, they will need another currency to take its place, one that will be acceptable to everyone else around the world. After all, those same transnational deals will continue to take place and the people who engage in them will need some kind of currency to complete the transactions. So then, what can replace the dollar?
That same question can also be asked with regard to the money that sovereign governments borrow from time to time. The way things are done now is that a government that decides to borrow money issues a bond denominated in its own currency or, on rare occasions, issues the bond in the currency of another nation such as the American dollar. Of course, a bond is a promise to pay the money back in the denominated currency with interest at a specified date. But to put things in perspective, it should be noted that there was a time when the dollar itself was maintained stable only because it was pegged to gold. The exchange rate was fixed at 35 American dollars per ounce of pure gold, and the other major currencies of the world were pegged to the dollar at a fixed rate also. This arrangement came to an end in 1971 when the French opted out of it and the Americans broke the peg by withdrawing the promise to pay 35 dollars in exchange for an ounce of gold.
And when the financial crisis of 2008 hit -- an event that started in America and went on to create severe problems around the globe -- people realized that solving these problems can only happen at the expense of the American dollar which will have to be devalued. Accordingly, some people suggested that we return to the gold standard, other people suggested that we adopt a system based on a basket of commodities and still other people suggested that we adopt the Special Drawing Rights (SDR), a kind of index now used as virtual money by the International Monetary Fund.
Before we look into each of these suggestions let us see what they are supposed to accomplish in the first place. They are supposed to deliver stability, equity and fairness to the parties who enter into a contract now but do not consummate the deal until later on. This will be the time when the parties will do the actual exchange of goods or services for the agreed upon sum of money in the designated currency. However, the price of those goods or services will most certainly have changed by then and so will the relative value of the currency to pay with, a development that will defeat the principle of stability, equity and fairness. But there is worse; there is embedded in this development a provocative reality. It is this: If everything is in flux and nothing is absolute, the reality is that it will always be impossible to anchor to one thing and achieve the stability, equity and fairness we seek. So then, what do we do?
And this reality is at the core of the criticism leveled against the adoption of the gold standard or the idea of the basket of commodities; it is that their values are in constant flux. What is happening with these commodities is that fundamental and technical forces act on them, forces that even the most experienced of traders can never understand and whose pitfalls they cannot avoid. And there is here another provocative reality to contend with. It is this: For any commodity to have a value there must only be a limited quantity of it, but if the quantity is limited, the value of the commodity will remain vulnerable to the forces that maintain it in flux. It is a vicious cycle that needs to be tamed and one that begs the question: Can there be a way out of this dilemma?
Yes, there can be a way out but only if you anchor your solution to a large basket of commodities, not to one or to a small basket of them. The commodities should be chosen so that when the value of some will tend to rise, the value of the others will tend to fall. This combination will cancel out the individual fluctuations to some extent and thus maintain the basket relatively stable. The idea should apply to all sorts of commodities, be they agricultural products which depend among other things on the weather, or the base metals which depend on the ever changing balance between supply and demand, or the precious metals which are always the object of speculation. And when you give a weight to each item in the basket based on the importance that the item occupies in the economy you create an index such as there are many in use today.
In fact, this is the principle that underlies the composition of the SDR index. However, the time has come to overhaul this index by including in it all the currencies of the world without a single exception. What is included now are the US dollar, the Euro, the Yen and the British pound but it is important to have everyone in the index because, in addition to being an equitable idea, the inclusions will give every country the chance to convert its currency into the reserve currency of the world and vice versa. This way, everybody will be able to participate in world commerce.
But how do we create this reserve currency of the world? We create it by recognizing that natural resources are the building blocks that make an economy, and money is the cement that holds it all together. We combine the index of commodities with the index of currencies to create a super-index; and it is this super-index that will form the sturdy base upon which we can anchor our commercial undertakings thus achieve the near perfect stability we seek. The super-index will represent the world Reserve Currency Unit (RCU) to which the currency of every nation will convert back and forth.
Mindful that from time to time a currency will disappear and a new one appear, the system should be flexible enough to drop the disappearing one, make the new inclusion and readjust the relative weights. The same principle should apply to the other commodities whose importance to shoppers and to industry may change with time. For example, all commodities can be represented by subdividing the index of commodities into several sub-indices each comprising one or two items such as wheat and rice to represent the grains, tomato and zucchini to represent the vegetables, grapes and oranges to represent the fruits, fish and beef to represent the proteins et cetera. In addition, gold and silver could represent the precious metals, petroleum and uranium represent energy, copper and aluminum represent the base metals and so on. But this will change with time as the consumption patterns change.
Some people might argue that it will be too cumbersome to work with thousands of items making up a super-index that must be refreshed every day because prices fluctuate. Not to worry; such exercise may have been cumbersome in the old days when the work was done by hand but will be entirely manageable in this age of the computer and of instant communication. In fact, there exist now more complicated indices operating at all sorts of exchanges such as the stock, currency and commodities exchanges where the values are refreshed not every day but every second or even less. And all these indices work like a charm so to speak.
Let us now go back to the earlier example and see how a transaction would unfold under this new regime. The wealthy Turk and the Egyptian shipbuilder agree on a price in any currency they want be it the lira, the pound, the dollar or anything else. They consult the super-index and convert the price into Reserve Currency Units at the rate indicated by the super-index on that day, and this value is written into the contract. When the yacht is delivered, the Turk writes a check in RCU as per the contract at which time the shipbuilder takes it to his bank and has it redeemed not in RCU which is virtual money but in the currency of his choice such as the Egyptian pound. To do this, the bank looks up the conversion rate for this day in the super-index and may add the usual commission to pay for the risk inherent to conversions.
That same approach can be used with regard to corporate and to sovereign bonds, all of which can be written in RCU but then bought, sold and redeemed in any real currency according to the conversion rate indicated on the day that each transaction is made.
Thus, regardless as to how much the price of commodities, currencies or commercial papers change between the time that a contract is negotiated and the check is cashed, the intended value of the transaction is kept stable and the sense of equity and fairness is maintained.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
I Kept You Safe Says Dick Cheney
It was reported that the Vice President in the George W. Bush administration, Dick Cheney is writing his memoirs where he intends to clarify a few matters. He says he intends to show how the wars he launched against Afghanistan and Iraq together with the actions he helped engineer with regard to the torture known as waterboarding and the activities he promoted at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, have all contributed to keeping America safe from the time that the events of September 11, 2001 took place to the end of the administration’s term in office. Cheney hopes that this will clear him of any wrongdoing and portray him as protector of the American homeland.
In reality this debate has been going on for a while now and it has been a dismal one on balance. But the writing of history being too important to ignore, I have no choice but to say: frankly my dear, I do give a damn. Not that I believe history can be fooled -- it cannot, and the truth will always come out no matter how long it takes it -- but that history can be confused for a period of time and thus be delayed for some time. To avoid this delay and that confusion, I offer the following advice to the former Vice President and to whoever is helping him write the memoirs.
First of all, there is the old adage: “If you don’t kill them, you make them stronger” which is a saying that means a lot in the context of this debate. Long before the year 2001 rolled in, a bunch of Neocons had drawn a plan for America to attack Iraq. These Neocons were the Judeo-Zionist characters who converted from a liberalism they never understood to a conservatism they never grasped and were instrumental in getting W. Bush installed as President of the United States with Dick Cheney as Vice President. When the 2001 attack on America happened, the Neocons used it as excuse to implement their plan with the connivance and the assistance of Dick Cheney. And all of this took place while the President sat like a piece of furniture, oblivious of the implications that would flow from the cooking and the machination that Cheney et al were conducting around him.
In fact, the limited capacity of Bush’s intellect was the reason why the Neocons chose him for the job in the first place. And the low cognitive ability of the man was the reason why they succeeded in making him believe they were going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan when in reality they were conducting a dry run to prepare for the attack they launched against Iraq at a later date. The end result was that they made America fail in Iraq and made her lose precious time in the quest to kill Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. This made Al Qaeda a stronger entity everywhere in the world and facilitated its entry into Iraq where it never went before.
This brings us to the second adage: “Never get into a fight you cannot win.” Those who planned the attack on Iraq may or may not have known about this saying but they would not have adhered to it anyway because they do not care about such things. When they plan something they never consider an exit strategy because they only adhere to one strategy: Do what you want and God will send a Messiah to bail you out in the end no matter what you start. This is the reason why these characters and their innocent followers always end up being pogrommed or holocausted while those who help them implement their demonic plans end up having their noses rubbed in the mud. How do you like the smell of mud, America?
These are the realities that the former Vice President will try to spin like a carousel of quack ideas to justify the actions he took while in office. He will cite the fact that no attack on American soil took place between 2001 and 2009, and use this to argue that the measures he took to keep America safe have worked. Of course the measures have worked; anyone could have predicted that. The measures worked because Cheney had a meeting of the minds with Bin Laden. The two may not have sat together and hatched a specific plot but Cheney knew exactly what Bin Laden wanted and he gave it to him on a silver platter. Cheney gave bin Laden the opportunity to rub America’s nose in the mud, bankrupt the country and kill lots of American boys and girls. And Bin Laden did not even have to rake his brains in search of ways to send his suicidal boys to America; Cheney sent America’s own boys and girls to where he was. He sent America’s own to places far away from home where they were maimed and killed under atrocious conditions, something that added enormously to the suffering of their loved ones. If you were Bin Laden, would you not take this offer and refrain from mounting an attack on American soil so as to save Cheney’s face and pay for his kindness?
Dick Cheney gave Bin Laden not just any American to maim and to kill but gave him what the world saw as America’s finest. Yet, in Cheney’s eyes these were not boys and girls to be proud of but the downtrodden, little educated, unemployable things who will probably end up in jail one day. Cheney gave these youngsters the opportunity to volunteer and to “serve their country” for a chance at getting an education and possibly a job with perhaps a decent healthcare coverage to go with that. Of course, this would be contingent on the boys and girls not having to make the ultimate sacrifice which they did by the thousands, not getting so badly hurt as to end up bedridden for life which they did by the tens of thousands, and not committing suicide or going mental in which case they would go six feet under or be locked up in institutions which they did in droves. Cheney got what he wanted by giving Bin Laden what he craved and the result has been that the American mainland and Cheney’s face were both spared. So now Cheney has the opportunity to spin things the way he wants and claim victory, something he started doing already and said he plans to do again in his book.
History will not buy this nonsense but will ask the next obvious question: Was there an alternative that Cheney and his cohorts could have taken to keep America safe without giving Bin Laden what he wanted? The answer is yes because some countries adopted such alternatives and got good results. In fact, most of the countries in the Middle East and Europe that allied themselves with America were subjected to acts of terror before 2001 and again after that date. But they took the right measures to protect their people and succeeded in doing so at a cost that came to a fraction what it cost America in terms of blood, treasure and their standing in the world. They managed to defend themselves brilliantly despite the fact that they do not have the natural defenses which America has such as the vast distances that separate America from the Far East, and the oceans that keep the country in relative isolation.
Also, a number of combatants and suspected terrorists were rendered by Canada and America to some of those countries for interrogation. When these people came out of detention, they described how badly they were tortured over there. Appalling, cried the professional bellyachers at the Judeo-Zionist organizations, and they immediately got to work suing the governments of Canada and America for the illegal rendering that they did. The bellyachers sought compensation for their clients and settled one case out of court for more than ten million dollars. From this, they kept at least 90% of the money and handed the remaining million or so to the client. This is fairness as they see it because they were the ones to do the bellyaching in the first place even though their bellies did not ache while the client only suffered the torture which they described as appalling but no worse than that. So why would they not get ten times as much as the client? Is this logical or what!
And you would think the story ended here. Don’t be so naïve. Giving a million dollars to the client was too much for these guys and they had to recoup it one way or the other. So guess what they did. They invited the Canadian Minister of Immigration to a banquet and whispered in his ear the Talmudic song of wisdom. They told him that for some mysterious reason anti-Semitism has spiked in Canada and they needed a million dollars to combat it. And guess what the Minister did. He cut them a check for a million dollars. And you thought the Talmud was all about blood, gore and the killing of children with no humor in it. Well, if you cannot laugh at the twisted logic of the Talmud, you can at least smile derisively at the backwardness of the Canadian minister.
But how appalling was the torture over there, anyway? Well, the detainees were kept in isolation in a small room without a comfortable bed to sleep on. It was appalling to be sure because no human being should be treated like this especially that the individuals in question were innocent. But then something happened that created a staggering contrast standing against these revelations; it is that the pictures of Abu Ghraib came to light, and the practice of waterboarding was described in detail. What this did was display the unmistakable depravities of the American military under Cheney and the Neocons, depravities that made the torture in the other countries look like a short stay at a boot camp. So the world expected to hear howls of outrage from the same Judeo-Zionist bellyachers and their echo-repeaters but no outrage was expressed by these guys and no echo was blared by the repeaters for, they were the Neocons and their cohorts masquerading as do-gooders. On the contrary, these people sided with Cheney and his collaborators, and came up with lame excuses to justify the practices he authorized.
One excuse they often gave was the analogy of the ticking time bomb. But this was a dumb excuse because the terrorists do not leave a ticking bomb at a place and go away. They make themselves the bomb and blow up with their target. When you catch them you catch the ticking mechanism because they are the only ticking part in that contraption. Yes, some of those you detain may be aware of a plot being hatched by another cell but this would be a rare occasion because the terrorists are only told what they need to know about their operation and nothing else. Moreover, if the members of one cell suspect that they have been compromised by someone getting caught somewhere else, the reasonable assumption is that they will alter their plans right away. Not only that but they will use the opportunity to set up a trap so as to foil any operation the Americans may put together based on information they retrieved from an operative whose capture was trumpeted by the media.
No sir, torture does nothing to help interrogators collect the information they seek but the knowledge of torture is the ointment that eases the pain of the professional haters such as you find among the Judeo-Zionists believers. These are the people who never forgive or show mercy because their religious duty is to hate and seek revenge for thousands of years or even longer. Thus, we must conclude that the torture inflicted on the detainees at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib was authorized by Cheney not to protect America but to please the Judeo-Zionists that make up his base. Cheney fed their desire to inflict pain on someone guilty or someone innocent without distinction because it is what pleases them most. They were the Judeo-Zionist monsters on whose behalf Cheney has labored since before they were the Neocons, and for whose benefit he flushed America down the toilet for almost his entire political career.
And that is not how the man will clear his name, something he seems desperate to do as he gets on with age. He can clear his name only by telling the truth and giving a detailed account as to how he was used to suck America into the mission creep that damaged her so terribly. If Dick Cheney wants to redeem himself and if he is not running away from something, he should come clean, tell all and tell it like it was so that it never happens again; so that no one will ever again abuse America as did the Neocon Judeo-Zionists under his tutelage.
Tell the truth, Dick and get it over with. You can run away from the truth but you cannot hide it for ever.
In reality this debate has been going on for a while now and it has been a dismal one on balance. But the writing of history being too important to ignore, I have no choice but to say: frankly my dear, I do give a damn. Not that I believe history can be fooled -- it cannot, and the truth will always come out no matter how long it takes it -- but that history can be confused for a period of time and thus be delayed for some time. To avoid this delay and that confusion, I offer the following advice to the former Vice President and to whoever is helping him write the memoirs.
First of all, there is the old adage: “If you don’t kill them, you make them stronger” which is a saying that means a lot in the context of this debate. Long before the year 2001 rolled in, a bunch of Neocons had drawn a plan for America to attack Iraq. These Neocons were the Judeo-Zionist characters who converted from a liberalism they never understood to a conservatism they never grasped and were instrumental in getting W. Bush installed as President of the United States with Dick Cheney as Vice President. When the 2001 attack on America happened, the Neocons used it as excuse to implement their plan with the connivance and the assistance of Dick Cheney. And all of this took place while the President sat like a piece of furniture, oblivious of the implications that would flow from the cooking and the machination that Cheney et al were conducting around him.
In fact, the limited capacity of Bush’s intellect was the reason why the Neocons chose him for the job in the first place. And the low cognitive ability of the man was the reason why they succeeded in making him believe they were going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan when in reality they were conducting a dry run to prepare for the attack they launched against Iraq at a later date. The end result was that they made America fail in Iraq and made her lose precious time in the quest to kill Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. This made Al Qaeda a stronger entity everywhere in the world and facilitated its entry into Iraq where it never went before.
This brings us to the second adage: “Never get into a fight you cannot win.” Those who planned the attack on Iraq may or may not have known about this saying but they would not have adhered to it anyway because they do not care about such things. When they plan something they never consider an exit strategy because they only adhere to one strategy: Do what you want and God will send a Messiah to bail you out in the end no matter what you start. This is the reason why these characters and their innocent followers always end up being pogrommed or holocausted while those who help them implement their demonic plans end up having their noses rubbed in the mud. How do you like the smell of mud, America?
These are the realities that the former Vice President will try to spin like a carousel of quack ideas to justify the actions he took while in office. He will cite the fact that no attack on American soil took place between 2001 and 2009, and use this to argue that the measures he took to keep America safe have worked. Of course the measures have worked; anyone could have predicted that. The measures worked because Cheney had a meeting of the minds with Bin Laden. The two may not have sat together and hatched a specific plot but Cheney knew exactly what Bin Laden wanted and he gave it to him on a silver platter. Cheney gave bin Laden the opportunity to rub America’s nose in the mud, bankrupt the country and kill lots of American boys and girls. And Bin Laden did not even have to rake his brains in search of ways to send his suicidal boys to America; Cheney sent America’s own boys and girls to where he was. He sent America’s own to places far away from home where they were maimed and killed under atrocious conditions, something that added enormously to the suffering of their loved ones. If you were Bin Laden, would you not take this offer and refrain from mounting an attack on American soil so as to save Cheney’s face and pay for his kindness?
Dick Cheney gave Bin Laden not just any American to maim and to kill but gave him what the world saw as America’s finest. Yet, in Cheney’s eyes these were not boys and girls to be proud of but the downtrodden, little educated, unemployable things who will probably end up in jail one day. Cheney gave these youngsters the opportunity to volunteer and to “serve their country” for a chance at getting an education and possibly a job with perhaps a decent healthcare coverage to go with that. Of course, this would be contingent on the boys and girls not having to make the ultimate sacrifice which they did by the thousands, not getting so badly hurt as to end up bedridden for life which they did by the tens of thousands, and not committing suicide or going mental in which case they would go six feet under or be locked up in institutions which they did in droves. Cheney got what he wanted by giving Bin Laden what he craved and the result has been that the American mainland and Cheney’s face were both spared. So now Cheney has the opportunity to spin things the way he wants and claim victory, something he started doing already and said he plans to do again in his book.
History will not buy this nonsense but will ask the next obvious question: Was there an alternative that Cheney and his cohorts could have taken to keep America safe without giving Bin Laden what he wanted? The answer is yes because some countries adopted such alternatives and got good results. In fact, most of the countries in the Middle East and Europe that allied themselves with America were subjected to acts of terror before 2001 and again after that date. But they took the right measures to protect their people and succeeded in doing so at a cost that came to a fraction what it cost America in terms of blood, treasure and their standing in the world. They managed to defend themselves brilliantly despite the fact that they do not have the natural defenses which America has such as the vast distances that separate America from the Far East, and the oceans that keep the country in relative isolation.
Also, a number of combatants and suspected terrorists were rendered by Canada and America to some of those countries for interrogation. When these people came out of detention, they described how badly they were tortured over there. Appalling, cried the professional bellyachers at the Judeo-Zionist organizations, and they immediately got to work suing the governments of Canada and America for the illegal rendering that they did. The bellyachers sought compensation for their clients and settled one case out of court for more than ten million dollars. From this, they kept at least 90% of the money and handed the remaining million or so to the client. This is fairness as they see it because they were the ones to do the bellyaching in the first place even though their bellies did not ache while the client only suffered the torture which they described as appalling but no worse than that. So why would they not get ten times as much as the client? Is this logical or what!
And you would think the story ended here. Don’t be so naïve. Giving a million dollars to the client was too much for these guys and they had to recoup it one way or the other. So guess what they did. They invited the Canadian Minister of Immigration to a banquet and whispered in his ear the Talmudic song of wisdom. They told him that for some mysterious reason anti-Semitism has spiked in Canada and they needed a million dollars to combat it. And guess what the Minister did. He cut them a check for a million dollars. And you thought the Talmud was all about blood, gore and the killing of children with no humor in it. Well, if you cannot laugh at the twisted logic of the Talmud, you can at least smile derisively at the backwardness of the Canadian minister.
But how appalling was the torture over there, anyway? Well, the detainees were kept in isolation in a small room without a comfortable bed to sleep on. It was appalling to be sure because no human being should be treated like this especially that the individuals in question were innocent. But then something happened that created a staggering contrast standing against these revelations; it is that the pictures of Abu Ghraib came to light, and the practice of waterboarding was described in detail. What this did was display the unmistakable depravities of the American military under Cheney and the Neocons, depravities that made the torture in the other countries look like a short stay at a boot camp. So the world expected to hear howls of outrage from the same Judeo-Zionist bellyachers and their echo-repeaters but no outrage was expressed by these guys and no echo was blared by the repeaters for, they were the Neocons and their cohorts masquerading as do-gooders. On the contrary, these people sided with Cheney and his collaborators, and came up with lame excuses to justify the practices he authorized.
One excuse they often gave was the analogy of the ticking time bomb. But this was a dumb excuse because the terrorists do not leave a ticking bomb at a place and go away. They make themselves the bomb and blow up with their target. When you catch them you catch the ticking mechanism because they are the only ticking part in that contraption. Yes, some of those you detain may be aware of a plot being hatched by another cell but this would be a rare occasion because the terrorists are only told what they need to know about their operation and nothing else. Moreover, if the members of one cell suspect that they have been compromised by someone getting caught somewhere else, the reasonable assumption is that they will alter their plans right away. Not only that but they will use the opportunity to set up a trap so as to foil any operation the Americans may put together based on information they retrieved from an operative whose capture was trumpeted by the media.
No sir, torture does nothing to help interrogators collect the information they seek but the knowledge of torture is the ointment that eases the pain of the professional haters such as you find among the Judeo-Zionists believers. These are the people who never forgive or show mercy because their religious duty is to hate and seek revenge for thousands of years or even longer. Thus, we must conclude that the torture inflicted on the detainees at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib was authorized by Cheney not to protect America but to please the Judeo-Zionists that make up his base. Cheney fed their desire to inflict pain on someone guilty or someone innocent without distinction because it is what pleases them most. They were the Judeo-Zionist monsters on whose behalf Cheney has labored since before they were the Neocons, and for whose benefit he flushed America down the toilet for almost his entire political career.
And that is not how the man will clear his name, something he seems desperate to do as he gets on with age. He can clear his name only by telling the truth and giving a detailed account as to how he was used to suck America into the mission creep that damaged her so terribly. If Dick Cheney wants to redeem himself and if he is not running away from something, he should come clean, tell all and tell it like it was so that it never happens again; so that no one will ever again abuse America as did the Neocon Judeo-Zionists under his tutelage.
Tell the truth, Dick and get it over with. You can run away from the truth but you cannot hide it for ever.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
UNESCO On Their Minds
The American edition of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an editorial on September 7, 2009 reprinted from the European edition under the title: “The UN’s New Censor” and the subtitle: “The next head of Unesco has a record that speaks for itself.” On that same day the New York Times (NYT) published a column written by Roger Cohen under the title: “An Egyptian for Unesco”, and a report by Michael Slackman sent from Cairo under the title: “Private Motive for Egypt’s Public Embrace of a Jewish Past.”
The two opinion articles decry the fact that Egypt’s Minister of Culture, Mr. Farouk Hosni, is considered the favored candidate to be elected head of Unesco. In fact, the subtitle of the WSJ’s editorial suggests that the paper felt the victory of the man was inevitable.
The condemnation of Mr. Hosni by the two articles and the brouhaha that was raised with regard to the entire situation are not surprising because there is nothing new in them. This was a moment best expressed by a saying made famous by the late President of the United States, Ronald Reagan when he cried out: “Here we go again!” Indeed, that same group of Egypt haters did it when Boutros Ghali’s time came to be reappointed head of the United Nations where they succeeded in blocking the move, and did it again when Mohammad El Baradei’s time came to be reappointed head of the world atomic watchdog where they failed to block the move. Like goes the axiom: You win some and you lose some. But what is clear is that the World Jewish organizations and their journalistic lackeys in the English media have declared war on Egypt and they are not relenting one bit.
Let us look at the WSJ’s editorial. Having mentioned the plea that Mr. Hosni made to his critics to look at his entire record and not be fixated on a single sentence he may have uttered at one time, the Journal ends with their typical one-liner wisecrack: “One can only hope that Unesco’s executive council does just that.” Well, the executive did just that and they did it long before the Jewish organizations lit the fires of fake indignation under the pants of the editorial writers at the WSJ. And they came to the conclusion that it was okay for Mr. Hosni to be considered for the job.
Perhaps I should dwell on this point a little longer to give the reader a wider perspective as to what is going on here. There was a time long ago, before Mr. Obama was elected President of the United States that Blacks were deliberately made to feel inferior in their own country, America. However, most of them ignored these attempts and went about their lives as normally as possible. But this was not the case with a few young men who were irritated by the situation, in response to which they created and turned into folklore a walk which I believe came to be known as the Duck Walk. And you can imagine what it looked like.
This was the way that the young men communicated to their tormentors this message: “I don’t care what you think of me; I know what I am worth and you will not change that.” Well, it is known that some stuffed shirt Americans suffer from a sense of intellectual inferiority when they compare themselves to the Europeans. And what do the likes of the editors at the WSJ do about it? They adopt the wisecrack method of ending their editorials as they did in their European edition; a sort of literary Duck Walk they modeled after that of the Black youngsters. And it is with this method that the stuffed shirt Americans say to the Europeans who never bother to talk to them: “You may think we are inferior to you but we are not. And we shall prove it as soon as we find something intelligent to say, you’ll see.” Dear reader, I am citing this historical moment because I thought you might be interested to know.
But enough talk about the fake quackery displayed by the Wall Street Journal and let us look at the more authentic complaints registered by Roger Cohen in his NYT column. He ends the piece by saying he wants to drain: “the poisonous well from which his [Hosni’s] own … venom was drawn.” Be that as it may, will Roger Cohen now write a column and honestly report that the Foreign Minister of Israel said he wants to bomb the Aswan dam in Egypt, an act that will flood the country and kill as many as 80 million people? This done, will Cohen then advocate that the well from which Lieberman and all those like him draw be drained of its venom?
I doubt that Cohen will do such a thing because I know that any Jew who wants to remain a Jew will never do so as this would mean renouncing their Jewishness. There is another reason I mention at the end but for now, the idea of inflicting unlimited hurt on Egypt is the stuff that the Old Testament is made of and this is literally the Bible of the Jews. It is written in this Bible that the God of the Jews did a good thing when he made the Egyptians suffer which is why the anniversaries of such events are celebrated to this day with nostalgia, great jubilation and the expectation that God will do it again and again and again.
That is the well from which Avigdor Lieberman had been drawing when he was growing up in Russia, and it is the well from which he is now drawing as he lives in Israel. And religion being a portable thing, Lieberman has taken his everywhere he went as will Roger Cohen everywhere he will go tomorrow, the day after and every day after that. Judaism is based on the stories of the Exodus and those of Moses, and these are synonymous with the destruction of Egypt. To fantasize about them is to pray like a devout Jew, and Lieberman is only displaying how devout he is.
And this is not just a recent manifestation of that reality. In fact, when in 1967 Israel launched a Pearl Harbor style attack in a six-day blitz that started the six-year war which ended with the booting of the Israelis out of the Sinai in 1973, the blitz was carried live on the Canadian broadcasting network. A reporter by the name of Joe Schlesinger was allowed to co-anchor the broadcast where he kept asking with a sense of jubilation and with great expectation if the Israelis had bombed the Aswan dam yet. Evidently he was anxious to see millions of Egyptians swallowed by the water as they cried for help in the manner that the Jewish book of religion describes such events in antiquity. And all you need to do is listen carefully to what these people say to each other to realize that this is how things have tasted in their mouths since the first drop of milk they drew out of the breast of their mothers. This horror is both the religion and the mother’s milk of modern Jews.
And this brings us to the Michael Slackman report in the NYT. He mentions a number of people, among whom a 62 year old man called Yousef. Slackman met him in what he says used to be called Alley of the Jews. This must be the same “Haret El Yahood” I knew very well when I lived in Cairo some half a century ago as a teenager. Yousef told Slackman he moved there when he was 12 which means it was 50 years ago, about the time that I was there. And Yousef went on to say that he “…remembered having Jewish neighbors but never thought of them as Jewish. They were just Egyptians, like everyone else.” Well, I did not live in Haret El Yahood but some of my Jewish schoolmates did, and we were so close we studied together and spent nights in each others’ homes.
My friends were Jews of Egyptian, Armenian, Persian and European descent whose ancestors went to Egypt seeking safety and opportunity. The best part I liked about my friendship with them was the part where the mothers claimed that the dish made of eggplants called Musaka was invented where they came from and they all competed to make the best dish of all so as to impress us. That was one delicious competition and we, the kids, made sure never to call any mother the clear winner. Our strategy was to keep the mothers competing about the Musaka and about the other dishes as well as the pastries that came after them for dessert. I have fond memories of those years and I can relate to what Yousef told Michael Slackman.
So then, what happened? Well, like Yousef says, 1967 happened. I was not there when the war happened but was here in Canada having left Egypt with the family 3 years before. And I can imagine what they must have gone through in there because I know what I went through in here as the rabbis set out to “educate the public” as to the realities of Jewish behavior. In a field where there was not a single Arab who could or would push back, the Jewish organizations in North America mounted a solo campaign of slurs, insults and defamation that would have made the Nazi minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels cringe. They used expressions like mad dogs and wounded animals to describe the Arabs, and they drew cartoons in major newspapers like the one that depicted the Arabs as bugs being exterminated by a hand bearing the Star of David spraying insecticide on them.
So I wrote a letter to the editor which was published in 1968 in the Toronto Star under the title: “Don’t listen to propaganda, Egypt is a civilized country.” Neither Israel nor the Jews were mentioned in the article, and I attacked no one. I simply said that Egypt was a country that has contributed a great deal to Civilization and that it was a nice place. But guess what happened, I was visited by a member of the Canadian Jewish Congress who warned me never to try such a thing again. I rejected the advice and kept trying only to realize how futile it was to try and get published in a culture where freedom of the press is something they brag about like the eunuch who brags about his stud-like potency. Folks, castrated journalism is not worth a toilet paper; get off your fantasy of believing you are free because you don’t know what that means.
As for me, I stopped hoping I’ll ever get published but I kept going through the motion of trying to be published so as to gain first hand knowledge on the subject and report to the world with authority that: I saw Hell and it has the Star of David stamped all over it. Year after year, I saw close-up how the Jewish organizations tightened the noose around the neck of the English media which in the end became as much a part of Hell as the never-flushed urinal in the workshop of the devil-in-chief himself.
Yes, like says Roger Cohen, there are wells full of venom that need to be drained. Some wells were filled after 1967 at the hand of the rabbis that set out to educate them but these have the antidote to neutralize the venom and they are working on it. The problem is not with them; it is with those who suckle the venom with their mother’s milk and make it their religion. To drain these wells, you must drain the breast of every Jewish mother that breastfeeds the Lieberman style hatred of aggression and racism to her children. But will Roger Cohen advocate this?
The two opinion articles decry the fact that Egypt’s Minister of Culture, Mr. Farouk Hosni, is considered the favored candidate to be elected head of Unesco. In fact, the subtitle of the WSJ’s editorial suggests that the paper felt the victory of the man was inevitable.
The condemnation of Mr. Hosni by the two articles and the brouhaha that was raised with regard to the entire situation are not surprising because there is nothing new in them. This was a moment best expressed by a saying made famous by the late President of the United States, Ronald Reagan when he cried out: “Here we go again!” Indeed, that same group of Egypt haters did it when Boutros Ghali’s time came to be reappointed head of the United Nations where they succeeded in blocking the move, and did it again when Mohammad El Baradei’s time came to be reappointed head of the world atomic watchdog where they failed to block the move. Like goes the axiom: You win some and you lose some. But what is clear is that the World Jewish organizations and their journalistic lackeys in the English media have declared war on Egypt and they are not relenting one bit.
Let us look at the WSJ’s editorial. Having mentioned the plea that Mr. Hosni made to his critics to look at his entire record and not be fixated on a single sentence he may have uttered at one time, the Journal ends with their typical one-liner wisecrack: “One can only hope that Unesco’s executive council does just that.” Well, the executive did just that and they did it long before the Jewish organizations lit the fires of fake indignation under the pants of the editorial writers at the WSJ. And they came to the conclusion that it was okay for Mr. Hosni to be considered for the job.
Perhaps I should dwell on this point a little longer to give the reader a wider perspective as to what is going on here. There was a time long ago, before Mr. Obama was elected President of the United States that Blacks were deliberately made to feel inferior in their own country, America. However, most of them ignored these attempts and went about their lives as normally as possible. But this was not the case with a few young men who were irritated by the situation, in response to which they created and turned into folklore a walk which I believe came to be known as the Duck Walk. And you can imagine what it looked like.
This was the way that the young men communicated to their tormentors this message: “I don’t care what you think of me; I know what I am worth and you will not change that.” Well, it is known that some stuffed shirt Americans suffer from a sense of intellectual inferiority when they compare themselves to the Europeans. And what do the likes of the editors at the WSJ do about it? They adopt the wisecrack method of ending their editorials as they did in their European edition; a sort of literary Duck Walk they modeled after that of the Black youngsters. And it is with this method that the stuffed shirt Americans say to the Europeans who never bother to talk to them: “You may think we are inferior to you but we are not. And we shall prove it as soon as we find something intelligent to say, you’ll see.” Dear reader, I am citing this historical moment because I thought you might be interested to know.
But enough talk about the fake quackery displayed by the Wall Street Journal and let us look at the more authentic complaints registered by Roger Cohen in his NYT column. He ends the piece by saying he wants to drain: “the poisonous well from which his [Hosni’s] own … venom was drawn.” Be that as it may, will Roger Cohen now write a column and honestly report that the Foreign Minister of Israel said he wants to bomb the Aswan dam in Egypt, an act that will flood the country and kill as many as 80 million people? This done, will Cohen then advocate that the well from which Lieberman and all those like him draw be drained of its venom?
I doubt that Cohen will do such a thing because I know that any Jew who wants to remain a Jew will never do so as this would mean renouncing their Jewishness. There is another reason I mention at the end but for now, the idea of inflicting unlimited hurt on Egypt is the stuff that the Old Testament is made of and this is literally the Bible of the Jews. It is written in this Bible that the God of the Jews did a good thing when he made the Egyptians suffer which is why the anniversaries of such events are celebrated to this day with nostalgia, great jubilation and the expectation that God will do it again and again and again.
That is the well from which Avigdor Lieberman had been drawing when he was growing up in Russia, and it is the well from which he is now drawing as he lives in Israel. And religion being a portable thing, Lieberman has taken his everywhere he went as will Roger Cohen everywhere he will go tomorrow, the day after and every day after that. Judaism is based on the stories of the Exodus and those of Moses, and these are synonymous with the destruction of Egypt. To fantasize about them is to pray like a devout Jew, and Lieberman is only displaying how devout he is.
And this is not just a recent manifestation of that reality. In fact, when in 1967 Israel launched a Pearl Harbor style attack in a six-day blitz that started the six-year war which ended with the booting of the Israelis out of the Sinai in 1973, the blitz was carried live on the Canadian broadcasting network. A reporter by the name of Joe Schlesinger was allowed to co-anchor the broadcast where he kept asking with a sense of jubilation and with great expectation if the Israelis had bombed the Aswan dam yet. Evidently he was anxious to see millions of Egyptians swallowed by the water as they cried for help in the manner that the Jewish book of religion describes such events in antiquity. And all you need to do is listen carefully to what these people say to each other to realize that this is how things have tasted in their mouths since the first drop of milk they drew out of the breast of their mothers. This horror is both the religion and the mother’s milk of modern Jews.
And this brings us to the Michael Slackman report in the NYT. He mentions a number of people, among whom a 62 year old man called Yousef. Slackman met him in what he says used to be called Alley of the Jews. This must be the same “Haret El Yahood” I knew very well when I lived in Cairo some half a century ago as a teenager. Yousef told Slackman he moved there when he was 12 which means it was 50 years ago, about the time that I was there. And Yousef went on to say that he “…remembered having Jewish neighbors but never thought of them as Jewish. They were just Egyptians, like everyone else.” Well, I did not live in Haret El Yahood but some of my Jewish schoolmates did, and we were so close we studied together and spent nights in each others’ homes.
My friends were Jews of Egyptian, Armenian, Persian and European descent whose ancestors went to Egypt seeking safety and opportunity. The best part I liked about my friendship with them was the part where the mothers claimed that the dish made of eggplants called Musaka was invented where they came from and they all competed to make the best dish of all so as to impress us. That was one delicious competition and we, the kids, made sure never to call any mother the clear winner. Our strategy was to keep the mothers competing about the Musaka and about the other dishes as well as the pastries that came after them for dessert. I have fond memories of those years and I can relate to what Yousef told Michael Slackman.
So then, what happened? Well, like Yousef says, 1967 happened. I was not there when the war happened but was here in Canada having left Egypt with the family 3 years before. And I can imagine what they must have gone through in there because I know what I went through in here as the rabbis set out to “educate the public” as to the realities of Jewish behavior. In a field where there was not a single Arab who could or would push back, the Jewish organizations in North America mounted a solo campaign of slurs, insults and defamation that would have made the Nazi minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels cringe. They used expressions like mad dogs and wounded animals to describe the Arabs, and they drew cartoons in major newspapers like the one that depicted the Arabs as bugs being exterminated by a hand bearing the Star of David spraying insecticide on them.
So I wrote a letter to the editor which was published in 1968 in the Toronto Star under the title: “Don’t listen to propaganda, Egypt is a civilized country.” Neither Israel nor the Jews were mentioned in the article, and I attacked no one. I simply said that Egypt was a country that has contributed a great deal to Civilization and that it was a nice place. But guess what happened, I was visited by a member of the Canadian Jewish Congress who warned me never to try such a thing again. I rejected the advice and kept trying only to realize how futile it was to try and get published in a culture where freedom of the press is something they brag about like the eunuch who brags about his stud-like potency. Folks, castrated journalism is not worth a toilet paper; get off your fantasy of believing you are free because you don’t know what that means.
As for me, I stopped hoping I’ll ever get published but I kept going through the motion of trying to be published so as to gain first hand knowledge on the subject and report to the world with authority that: I saw Hell and it has the Star of David stamped all over it. Year after year, I saw close-up how the Jewish organizations tightened the noose around the neck of the English media which in the end became as much a part of Hell as the never-flushed urinal in the workshop of the devil-in-chief himself.
Yes, like says Roger Cohen, there are wells full of venom that need to be drained. Some wells were filled after 1967 at the hand of the rabbis that set out to educate them but these have the antidote to neutralize the venom and they are working on it. The problem is not with them; it is with those who suckle the venom with their mother’s milk and make it their religion. To drain these wells, you must drain the breast of every Jewish mother that breastfeeds the Lieberman style hatred of aggression and racism to her children. But will Roger Cohen advocate this?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Phantom Erection Of The Eunuch (2 of 2)
For a reason that is not yet clear, a Middle Eastern method of self identification was picked up by the Jewish organizations and spread throughout the West, especially the English speaking part of it where it was force-fed to members of the print and the audio-visual media. It is a good idea for the readers to know something about this method because it will help them determine the degree of control that the Jewish organizations exert on a journalistic outfit.
To see how the method works in the Middle East today, imagine two people meeting for the first time. Assume that both have what is called a common name, meaning that both names are neither overly Christian such as, for example, the name George nor overly Muslim such as Mahmoud but are names that can be used by both religions such as Fouad which in Arabic actually means heart but is also used as a proper name. Thus, to identify himself as a Christian after a few minutes of talk, one would say, for example: “The other day I spoke with a Christian and a Muslim…” By putting the word Christian first and putting Muslim second identifies this person as a Christian. It goes without saying that the Muslim will reverse the order when the time comes to identify himself by his religion.
This rule was transplanted into the English media and is being enforced with a brutality so savage that if a guest or host make a mistake - say on television - and utter something like “the Palestinian-Israeli conflict” instead of uttering “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” you see the poor thing turn panicky and tremble with fear as if terrorized by someone hidden from view. The host or guest will then peek at the camera with a depressed expression and a look on the face that begs forgiveness as if to say to every Jew who may be watching: “I shall be more careful next time and I promise never to make this mistake again. It will always be Israel first and then the others but please do not destroy my life and my career because I have a spouse and children to feed.”
What exactly the Jewish organizations are trying to accomplish by imposing an import such as this on the English culture is not yet clear but this is what freedom and democracy have been reduced to in the English speaking world. This is America today, Great Britain, Canada and Australia, and this is what is most pathetic about the English media as they are practiced in this day and age. With a free people like these engaged in a free press like that, the world does not need a Stalin, a Hitler, a Mussolini or what have you. Israel and the Jewish organizations, together with their lackeys in the English media, are more than capable of completing the unfinished work of the charlatans, a work whose aim was and still is to reduce the human person to nothing in favor of creating a master race of the imagination such as the Nazi-Aryan concoction. And consciously or unconsciously, someone is now trying to brew a Judeo-Zionist mix that will rival the Nazis while ignoring the fact that the end will inevitably have to be the same.
But while the imposition of the foreign import onto the English culture may be thought of as a great achievement by the twisted minds of the friends of Israel, it does not rise to the level of the psychological erection because it does nothing more than make you realize how much a culture can be weakened, even if that was the same Anglo-American culture which once stood confident and commanding as it conquered the world with a prowess that was linguistic, cultural, economic and military rolled into one.
Meanwhile, the Israelis and their friends in America still fantasize about the political and military successes that Israel never had, and they still rely on a distorted vision of reality to plan for future adventures. After all, it was their domination of the media that allowed them to fully control the US Congress and partially control the rest of the US government -- so why not carry the success further still. Yes, they turned the Congress into an Israel-worshiping body of the criminally insane who would vote and sign letters to blow up and terrorize the children of Palestine rather than vote or sign letters to provide health care and to heal the children of America but the questions that the world is now asking cast a serious doubt as to the merits of the vision that still grips the Israelis and their friends.
Those questions sum up like this: If the Israelis and their friends in New York and Washington succeed in pulling another one of their stunts, will they lead to another ill-fated American adventure in the Arab or Muslim lands? And if this happens, will it net Israel anything more than the satisfaction of seeing America destroy itself trying to destroy a people that the Jewish organizations chose to be their enemy of the day? And if this happens, will it not forevermore cement in the minds of human beings everywhere that the Jews started every war and caused every calamity that have plagued this Planet since the beginning of time? Only someone sicker than Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini put together would think of this as an accomplishment worth bragging about yet this is what the Israelis and their friends do all the time as they live with the fantasy of being in full and constant erection mode.
When you see on television a spectacle where the word Israel is consciously and doggedly put first for fear of doing otherwise, or when you read in the print media something to this effect, you will be able to tell who is under the thumb of the Jewish organizations and to what degree they are being stage-managed. This done, you will know which lens you are looking through and how to interpret the information you are consuming. For example, when you consistently read negative reports about the Arabs in a magazine such as the Economist, you will dismiss them as Judeo-Zionist propaganda and hold the view that the opposite of what you are reading must be true.
After all, contrary to what the Economist has been propagating over the years, the Arab economies are not stagnating. In fact, the Arab countries that have no petroleum to speak of are ahead of those countries in Southeast Asia which have been called the new miracle economies. As for the Arab countries that have large reserves of petroleum, well, these ones are bailing out such vibrant, free, capitalist and liberal democratic economies as the United States of America and Great Britain. And the question to ask is not what is wrong with the Arabs but where has the Economist been all these years? On what planet have its editors lived to miss all this?
You might say that with stagnation in the style of the Arab economies no one needs resiliency in the style of the Anglo-American economies. You might also say that the Economist should keep their lesson on Economics to themselves because the Arabs are telling them this: Thanks for the lesson but no thanks. And now the Arabs have a good reason to add the following: By the way, you editors who edit the Economist, you must learn to distinguish between Arab self-deprecation and the views of the United Nations because they are not the same thing. To write about the Arab world as you did on July 23, 2009 shows that you remain as confused as ever while the Jewish organizations continue to stage-manage you, having turned you into comical journalistic puppets long ago. In fact, to manipulate the feeble minded is what these organizations are good for but there is nothing good about their handicraft of which you are one wretched example.
And it is in the midst of this volcanic eruption of confusion, distortion, misinformation and disinformation created by the Israelis and their friends that they are once again turning to the impressionable Americans and asking for a quid pro quo. Get this now -- they are “negotiating” to get something horrible in return for abstaining from doing something equally horrible they have been doing for some time now. That is, they are promising to stop robbing the undefended people of Palestine if the Americans will bomb for them the defended people of Iran. Think about this my dear reader; it is like the pedophile who promises to stop molesting the little girl next door if the Americans will rape for him the boy across the hall. It is filthy, pure and simple, and there is nothing you can say that will overstate how disgusting this is. Indeed, the habit of asking for a payout in return for doing or not doing something is so Talmudic you can smell the stink a thousand miles away.
If the Americans take the bait, they will pay a heavy price and find themselves severely damaged. As for the Jews, they will have brought on themselves Hitler’s Final Solution because they will not be saved by a Messiah regardless of what they do but by the truth which they will have to confront sooner or later. They will also have to end the habit of gazing at their navel or below it because it generates an illusion of potency, the kind that gripped Hitler during his final days. This was a time when he imagined moving armies he no longer had just before he committed suicide and thus ended his own misery as well as what he inflicted on the world.
To conclude, the Jewish organizations must now raise their heads, look ahead and see what a wonderful world the Arabs are offering them to replace the fantasy of grandeur that no one has ever achieved. They must pull up their briefs to hide their nakedness and start doing some serious thinking because they are called upon to be useful to their people after millennia of doing nothing but commit horrible crimes in their name. If they are a people like they say they are and not a political ideology powered by the desire to conquer the world or fail and weep the Hymn of Victimhood, they must seize this opportunity and put an end to the habit of triggering a conflict here, there and everywhere they go.
The Jews know that while the Arabs are no saints they are a good people; and they are the most self-criticizing people that ever lived because they always strive to be even better. And no matter the odds, the Arabs will prevailed as they always have despite the antics of the Jewish organizations, the moral eunuchs that run them, the English media that marvel at the size of their fake potency and above all, despite a US Congress whose only accomplishment has been to turn a military and economic superpower into a Judeo-Zionist banana republic in less time than it takes to grow a banana tree.
To see how the method works in the Middle East today, imagine two people meeting for the first time. Assume that both have what is called a common name, meaning that both names are neither overly Christian such as, for example, the name George nor overly Muslim such as Mahmoud but are names that can be used by both religions such as Fouad which in Arabic actually means heart but is also used as a proper name. Thus, to identify himself as a Christian after a few minutes of talk, one would say, for example: “The other day I spoke with a Christian and a Muslim…” By putting the word Christian first and putting Muslim second identifies this person as a Christian. It goes without saying that the Muslim will reverse the order when the time comes to identify himself by his religion.
This rule was transplanted into the English media and is being enforced with a brutality so savage that if a guest or host make a mistake - say on television - and utter something like “the Palestinian-Israeli conflict” instead of uttering “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” you see the poor thing turn panicky and tremble with fear as if terrorized by someone hidden from view. The host or guest will then peek at the camera with a depressed expression and a look on the face that begs forgiveness as if to say to every Jew who may be watching: “I shall be more careful next time and I promise never to make this mistake again. It will always be Israel first and then the others but please do not destroy my life and my career because I have a spouse and children to feed.”
What exactly the Jewish organizations are trying to accomplish by imposing an import such as this on the English culture is not yet clear but this is what freedom and democracy have been reduced to in the English speaking world. This is America today, Great Britain, Canada and Australia, and this is what is most pathetic about the English media as they are practiced in this day and age. With a free people like these engaged in a free press like that, the world does not need a Stalin, a Hitler, a Mussolini or what have you. Israel and the Jewish organizations, together with their lackeys in the English media, are more than capable of completing the unfinished work of the charlatans, a work whose aim was and still is to reduce the human person to nothing in favor of creating a master race of the imagination such as the Nazi-Aryan concoction. And consciously or unconsciously, someone is now trying to brew a Judeo-Zionist mix that will rival the Nazis while ignoring the fact that the end will inevitably have to be the same.
But while the imposition of the foreign import onto the English culture may be thought of as a great achievement by the twisted minds of the friends of Israel, it does not rise to the level of the psychological erection because it does nothing more than make you realize how much a culture can be weakened, even if that was the same Anglo-American culture which once stood confident and commanding as it conquered the world with a prowess that was linguistic, cultural, economic and military rolled into one.
Meanwhile, the Israelis and their friends in America still fantasize about the political and military successes that Israel never had, and they still rely on a distorted vision of reality to plan for future adventures. After all, it was their domination of the media that allowed them to fully control the US Congress and partially control the rest of the US government -- so why not carry the success further still. Yes, they turned the Congress into an Israel-worshiping body of the criminally insane who would vote and sign letters to blow up and terrorize the children of Palestine rather than vote or sign letters to provide health care and to heal the children of America but the questions that the world is now asking cast a serious doubt as to the merits of the vision that still grips the Israelis and their friends.
Those questions sum up like this: If the Israelis and their friends in New York and Washington succeed in pulling another one of their stunts, will they lead to another ill-fated American adventure in the Arab or Muslim lands? And if this happens, will it net Israel anything more than the satisfaction of seeing America destroy itself trying to destroy a people that the Jewish organizations chose to be their enemy of the day? And if this happens, will it not forevermore cement in the minds of human beings everywhere that the Jews started every war and caused every calamity that have plagued this Planet since the beginning of time? Only someone sicker than Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini put together would think of this as an accomplishment worth bragging about yet this is what the Israelis and their friends do all the time as they live with the fantasy of being in full and constant erection mode.
When you see on television a spectacle where the word Israel is consciously and doggedly put first for fear of doing otherwise, or when you read in the print media something to this effect, you will be able to tell who is under the thumb of the Jewish organizations and to what degree they are being stage-managed. This done, you will know which lens you are looking through and how to interpret the information you are consuming. For example, when you consistently read negative reports about the Arabs in a magazine such as the Economist, you will dismiss them as Judeo-Zionist propaganda and hold the view that the opposite of what you are reading must be true.
After all, contrary to what the Economist has been propagating over the years, the Arab economies are not stagnating. In fact, the Arab countries that have no petroleum to speak of are ahead of those countries in Southeast Asia which have been called the new miracle economies. As for the Arab countries that have large reserves of petroleum, well, these ones are bailing out such vibrant, free, capitalist and liberal democratic economies as the United States of America and Great Britain. And the question to ask is not what is wrong with the Arabs but where has the Economist been all these years? On what planet have its editors lived to miss all this?
You might say that with stagnation in the style of the Arab economies no one needs resiliency in the style of the Anglo-American economies. You might also say that the Economist should keep their lesson on Economics to themselves because the Arabs are telling them this: Thanks for the lesson but no thanks. And now the Arabs have a good reason to add the following: By the way, you editors who edit the Economist, you must learn to distinguish between Arab self-deprecation and the views of the United Nations because they are not the same thing. To write about the Arab world as you did on July 23, 2009 shows that you remain as confused as ever while the Jewish organizations continue to stage-manage you, having turned you into comical journalistic puppets long ago. In fact, to manipulate the feeble minded is what these organizations are good for but there is nothing good about their handicraft of which you are one wretched example.
And it is in the midst of this volcanic eruption of confusion, distortion, misinformation and disinformation created by the Israelis and their friends that they are once again turning to the impressionable Americans and asking for a quid pro quo. Get this now -- they are “negotiating” to get something horrible in return for abstaining from doing something equally horrible they have been doing for some time now. That is, they are promising to stop robbing the undefended people of Palestine if the Americans will bomb for them the defended people of Iran. Think about this my dear reader; it is like the pedophile who promises to stop molesting the little girl next door if the Americans will rape for him the boy across the hall. It is filthy, pure and simple, and there is nothing you can say that will overstate how disgusting this is. Indeed, the habit of asking for a payout in return for doing or not doing something is so Talmudic you can smell the stink a thousand miles away.
If the Americans take the bait, they will pay a heavy price and find themselves severely damaged. As for the Jews, they will have brought on themselves Hitler’s Final Solution because they will not be saved by a Messiah regardless of what they do but by the truth which they will have to confront sooner or later. They will also have to end the habit of gazing at their navel or below it because it generates an illusion of potency, the kind that gripped Hitler during his final days. This was a time when he imagined moving armies he no longer had just before he committed suicide and thus ended his own misery as well as what he inflicted on the world.
To conclude, the Jewish organizations must now raise their heads, look ahead and see what a wonderful world the Arabs are offering them to replace the fantasy of grandeur that no one has ever achieved. They must pull up their briefs to hide their nakedness and start doing some serious thinking because they are called upon to be useful to their people after millennia of doing nothing but commit horrible crimes in their name. If they are a people like they say they are and not a political ideology powered by the desire to conquer the world or fail and weep the Hymn of Victimhood, they must seize this opportunity and put an end to the habit of triggering a conflict here, there and everywhere they go.
The Jews know that while the Arabs are no saints they are a good people; and they are the most self-criticizing people that ever lived because they always strive to be even better. And no matter the odds, the Arabs will prevailed as they always have despite the antics of the Jewish organizations, the moral eunuchs that run them, the English media that marvel at the size of their fake potency and above all, despite a US Congress whose only accomplishment has been to turn a military and economic superpower into a Judeo-Zionist banana republic in less time than it takes to grow a banana tree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)