In his December 10, 2009 speech on the occasion of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, President Barack Obama of the United States of America said this: “…make no mistake: evil does exist in the world.” Beyond making a vague allusion to Hitler, the President made no attempt to discuss a method by which to identify that evil or a way to reduce its effectiveness once it has been identified. The following is an attempt to do just that.
Be they religious or something else, most philosophies subscribe to the idea that because there is sin in the world there must have been an original sin from which all sins derive. If you formulate this idea in a slightly different way, you could say that if there is evil in the world, there must have been an original evil from which all evils derive. And the logical thing to do after that is to try and identify this original evil then think of ways to reduce its ill effect on the world.
Generally speaking, to identify something you need to find out as much as you can about it so that you may define it properly. This done, you search for that which fits the definition you just worked out, and when satisfied that you have it, you call it by a name that describes it best. In this case, the name that suits the thing will have to be: Mother of all evil. You now search for ways to mitigate the efficiency of this mother, and you try to reduce the effectiveness of the evils that she spawns whatever form they take.
With this in mind, we ask: What did we observe that has beset the human condition in the worst possible way since the beginning of time? And we answer that we saw suffering everywhere then conclude that the forces responsible for this condition must be the ones that define evil most accurately. But we must also recognize that this is the simple answer because evil is a complex thing given that it takes many forms and manifests itself at different levels of virulence. Thus, our designation of those levels will dependent on the variables we encounter as we discover how deliberate the evil was and how artificial were the excuses that led to it.
A parable should help to illustrate these points. In trying to control a crowd of protesters, a policeman is said to have panicked and to have fired a shot that killed someone. It is further said that a few of the other policemen guarding the same crowd reflexively pulled the trigger and killed a number of protesters. The police department set up a panel to investigate the incident and has determined which of the policemen did fire their guns and which did not. But the panel failed to determine with absolute certainty which of those that fired the guns did kill and which did not. The panel then concluded that, in any case, the shootings were the result of involuntary reflexive responses on the part of the policemen, and it closed the file without holding someone responsible for anything.
On the surface, this incident appears to have been a tragedy that can happen to any society anywhere. But a subsequent independent investigation was able to prove beyond any doubt that the firing continued past the time that normally falls within the realm of the reflexive responses. Because this meant that some firing was done deliberately in order to kill, the tragedy came to be called a massacre by the public. The notion was planted in the mind of some observers that a great evil was committed, and each player in the tragedy was associated with a different level of the responsibility. Thus, the public assigned responsibilities in this order: The highest responsibility went to the state followed by the police department, the individual policemen that fired with the intention to kill and those that fired to frighten but not to kill.
To help them make the determination on a sound legal basis, the independent investigators raised two important questions and sought answers for them. First, why were the armed policemen deployed to control a crowd that was on the whole a peaceful one? Second, why did the policeman who fired the first shot panic and pull the trigger when he was dressed in full riot gear, protected by a shield and a mask as he faced a crowd that was unarmed?
Unable to connect the dots or to develop definitive answers, the investigators questioned the motivation behind the police department’s decision to send a massive force to control a peaceful crowd. In doing this, they extended the search to the department and to the government itself as they continued to investigate the individual policemen. Lucky for them, the breakthrough came when the government inadvertently rendered the incident easy to investigate. What happened was that in the wake of mounting criticisms, the government responded by unleashing a verbal offensive accusing the world of disregarding the predicament in which it finds itself. It complained of an existential threat that comes from the outside and another threat that comes from the inside both of which, it said, it had to deal with decisively.
Besides exposing the true motivation behind the government’s behavior, this response gave the investigators an inkling as to the degree to which the police department had been working hand in hand with the government to suppress the public protests. Looking at the facts from a fresh angle, the investigators deduced that a tacit understanding and a kind of shared operation existed between the government and the police department to achieve several goals simultaneously. For one thing, the intent behind this and the other operations was to terrorize the protesters to put an end to the protests that used to flare up once in a while. Also, the idea was to conduct the operations in such a way as to make it impossible to trace the acts of state terrorism to the police department or to any branch of the government. More importantly, the government wanted to be in a position to call the protesters terrorists thus hide the fact that it was itself the only terrorist entity around.
Indeed, a number of whistleblowers later came forward and told their individual stories which, when pieced together, painted a revolting picture in two parts: First, subtle means were used to incite ordinary people from among the public to start the protests and to lead them without let up no matter how badly the scenes developed. Second, the government employed professionals who trained the impressionable young policemen to respond harshly “on their own” when the public protests began. These policemen were also brainwashed into believing that they had the solemn duty to take the fall and say nothing if and when things went badly. And so, on that fateful day, the two parts of this diabolic scheme came together and worked so well that a number of innocent people were killed, and the government almost got away with it.
Another startling development happened when the world woke up one morning to the news that in the interest of moral clarity, a handful of other nations were standing by the murderous government, lending it full support and encouragement for fighting terrorism and for ridding the world of it. This development brought to light the fact that the clandestine operations were not only an internal operation carried out by the murderous government but were a massive plot that extended beyond the borders of the state.
In fact, using bribery and blackmail, the agents of the terrorist state were able to infiltrate the highest echelons of the world’s superpower. Once at the helm and in control of this much power, the agents arranged for money, weapons and political support to be transferred to their real government back home. Furthermore, they asked for and received the kind of backing that made it impossible to hold their government accountable in the world forums for the crimes against humanity it has been committing almost on a daily basis. Worse, those agents used the power, the prestige and the veto of the superpower to shift the blame onto the protesters whom they called terrorists when their own government was the quintessential terrorist state, and for that matter, the only remaining terrorist state on the planet.
Finally, consider this, dear reader: Anyone who is so driven as to work locally and work internationally to fend off a threat that starts in his own imagination and ends up being the obsession of his life must suffer from a delusion of grandeur that exhorts him to believe he was chosen to rule the world. Sooner or later it will happen that this stance will prompt a would-be rival to challenge him at his game. And when the duel begins between these two, the clock will start to tick and thus announce the coming of the next apocalypse. This is how the cycle of “evil begets evil” has gone on for ages, and this is how it continues to go on even now. And it is that delusion of grandeur which defines the mother of all evil, the original evil we set out to discover and to identify at the beginning.
Let us now get back to the speech of President Obama. Like the man remarked, we can say that yes, evil does exist in the world. But we must add that evil is an ideology practiced by those who hijacked a defunct religion once called Judaism and renamed Zionism. Hitler who was also deluded by his own style of fantasies toyed with the idea of grandeur but, like the sorcerer’s apprentice in Goethe’s poem, he got his act all wrong to end up being deluged by what he feared the most. This happened because, as it he turned out, Hitler was only the made-up evil and not the all powerful maker of evil. On the other hand, the Zionists whose ideology keeps producing the Hitlers of the world, are getting away with butchering the people of Palestine, a policy they have adopted to clear the land of its inhabitants and set up an evil empire which has been a Zionist dream for as long as half the recorded history of mankind.
In their quest to achieve their repugnant objectives, the Zionists have infiltrated the superpower that is America of which Mr. Obama is President. And that is where they have managed to make it possible for themselves and their cohorts to continue the pursuit of the most abominable of crimes against humanity unhindered by any checks or balances. And there lies the irony of Mr. Obama’s speech in which he affirmed the existence of evil but failed to mention that his country was the food upon which that evil sustains itself and gets fortified.
Thus, if the President wants to rid the world of the evil that is gripping it, he should talk to his people and explain how he plans to free his country and theirs of the evil influence to which the country has surrendered. Failing this, he should go before a world forum and ask for help after admitting that America the superpower has been taken over by ideologues whose ideology was formed nearly four thousand years before Hitler was even a sperm in his father’s testicles. With nothing left to restrain them, these ideologues have paralyzed the country with venom so powerful it keeps the superpower completely incapacitated. And this is why he needs the assistance of everyone in the world to save his country and save the world.
This is the first installment in a trilogy relating to Mr. Obama’s speech. The next two installments will appear from time to time over the coming weeks.