Let's be honest with ourselves; nobody is a saint. We all cut corners when we are certain we can get away with it. Some people do not even wait till they are absolutely certainty as to the outcome of their behavior; they weigh the risk they may have to face doing something out of the ordinary and proceed with it if they deem that the potential benefit outweighs the risk. What this means is that corruption is woven into the fabric of human culture regardless as to who the human beings are and what their culture looks like. And this reality forces us to pose a serious question: Why do some people make it their business to run around as if gripped by hysteria and accuse many others of being hopelessly corrupt? Some of these people even go so far as to advocate the destruction of countries they accuse of being too corrupt to merit salvation. Such people argue that these are failed states anyway which deserve to be taken down under controlled conditions rather than be left to crumble on their own and cause the sort of damage that no one can foresee ahead of time.
This picture of reality is very much a part of the human condition such as we see it and recognize it in the works of art and literature that our ancestors have bequeathed to us. Thus, there is something old in this condition but there is also something new in it. The old is that some human beings pretend to be perfect by employing the trick of accusing others of not being perfect enough. In fact, the story they used to tell in the olden days to illustrate and to express this point of view is that of the woman who went around accusing every girl she saw of not being a virgin to give the impression that she was a virgin herself and thus hid the fact that she was a professional prostitute. They still do things in a similar fashion nowadays but they also go beyond it. Whereas the prostitute of the story inconvenienced the girls for a short period of time to throw a protective shield around her, the people who throw accusations of corruption against the others use this overture as a weapon to attack and to hurt their rivals. This is bad enough, as you can imagine, when it happens among individuals in the society where you live but when the intended victim is the regime of another nation, the consequences can have far reaching implications for the world. This is because unlike the girls of the story who could keep their distance and thus avoid being affected by the presence in their midst of a prostitute in disguise, the vulnerable regimes in the world of today may be hunted down to the end of the Earth by an evil force against which they may not have the wherewithal to adequately defend themselves.
But what is this evil force which battles the other nations, and who are the people behind it anyway? This question can be answered briefly as follows: there are two groups vying for the honor at the present time. One group is a recent phenomenon that calls itself Al Qaeda and the other is a pernicious thing that has come to be called World Jewry for several generations even though it has assumed other names as well. The kids that make up Al Qaeda tried to use the Muslim religion to rally around them the Muslim World but failed miserably in that they managed to attract but a handful of disgruntled lone wolves who know about Islam as much as say, the American Congress knows about self-respect which is zilch wrapped in more zilch. The World Jewry, on the other hand, has had a string of initial successes with the political and social movements it has been able to infiltrate, something it did on and off throughout the ages and around the world. The trouble is that it ended each adventure with a calamity that has engulfed and seriously hurt its members as well as the societies it was able to draw into its sphere of influence. At this time, the movement is enjoying a moment of great success riding high on the wings of the American Eagle it was able to tame, harness and put into the service of its own ends by turning the American Congress into Israel's rubber stamp and obedient whore-on-demand.
Members of the World Jewry gave themselves several names throughout the ages but their preferred name at this time is “Jewish Lobby”. This is because they use the Jewish religion to rally around them not only those who adhere to the Jewish religion but also the troubled Christians who are attracted to the cause because of one reason or another. The Jewish Lobby has achieved this much success by advancing the argument that the Jews and the Christians are a part of the larger movement of Judeo-Christians whose time has come to own and to rule the world. Never mind that this terminology is the ultimate oxymoron given that Christianity was founded by Jesus Christ as the peace and love antidote to the Jewish religion of blood, gore, mayhem and hate which he detested like the plague. Thus, the two religious movements are by logic mutually exclusive because if you are a real Jew you would want to crucify a Christian; and if you are a real Christian you would love a Jew enough to convert him or show him the way to the gas chamber. Alas, the human condition is such that if one part of the brain can imagine the absurd, another part of the same brain would labor in vain to turn that absurd into a reality.
These then are the Judeo-Christians who relentlessly go around the world and accuse other peoples and other nations of not being perfect enough to deserve being left alone. What gives them the power to do what they do is that they have been able to mobilize America -- the superpower of the day -- and were able to use it as their attack dog. In fact, they do not themselves level the accusations they fabricate against the regimes they intend to hurt if they can avoid it but let the superpower do it for them which then compels the latter to threaten the smaller nations of dire consequences if they do not comply with the dictates. There are times, however, when action follows the threat whereby America comes out of each adventure looking like a big loser and the biggest of all fools. As for the Jewish Lobby, it usually gains little or nothing at the expense of the other nations because everyone knows what is going on and they dodge the bullet the best way they can. If hit, they lick their wounds and move on to something else as quickly as possible. But where the Jewish Lobby makes a few gains is in America itself where it consolidates its powers even more after each calamity it inflicts on the country. And this consolidation happens in the worst way that you can imagine; it is that the American institutions are made to accept even more infiltrators of the “Judaists” kind – get this now -- to fix a system they themselves have weakened or have destroyed. And so these people get into the institutions where they engage in the usual machinations that embroil America in more and more calamities, again and again, on and on, for ever and ever. And so it goes on without end, without respite and without the mercy of even a temporary relief.
But what kind of corruption do these people say irritates them so much that they want to get rid of it by bludgeoning to death those who need to be saved from it? Well, this is where you are allowed to smile, my friend, because we are not talking about an Enron or a Madoff kind of corruption. In fact, we are not talking about a behavior we would recognize as corruption at all. Let us take the example of Egypt which has been the target of their artificial wrath for some time now. They came around to talking about corruption in that country when they discovered that kids who -- instead of selling lemonade on the corner of their street such as they do here in the West -- sell bread instead at the regular price having bought it at a subsidized price from government stores. In the West, we would call these kids enterprising and view them as excellent material to grow up and become leaders. We may even encourage them to continue doing what they do given that they have not created the situation from which they profit but are using it to benefit personally. So then, where did the idea of corruption come from? The short answer is that it comes from the local culture but to understand this answer fully, we first need a bit of preparation. In some cultures what is not specifically forbidden is allowed; in other cultures what is not specifically allowed is forbidden. Here, the words: allowed and forbidden are not used in the legal sense but used in the sense of ethics and morality. Thus, while these kids may not be punished in Egypt for what they do, they are seen to prepare themselves for a life that may end up looking like that of a Madoff or the Enron characters. And so, the move by the kids to exploit a weakness in the system is, within the context of the Egyptian culture, a form of corruption that may not be punished but will not be praised either anymore than we would praise the scalpers who hoard and sell tickets to sport events at a high price here in North America. So then why take the local definition of corruption and apply it out of context where it does not belong?
Before we answer this question let us look at another example. Someone has just discovered that he can pronounce the Arabic word “wasta” and write about it in English. This is because some people in Egypt have pointed to the existence of wasta as proof that the system is corrupt, a description that was picked up by the Anglo media and turned into big hay with the further description that the entire Egyptian system is “hopelessly corrupt”. The people who started to make these accusations in Egypt were by and large peasants who moved from the farm to urban settings looking to start a new life as the economy is now transforming from the agrarian to the industrial. These people were asked by potential employers if they had wasta and many said no. What happened after that is of little consequence when you understand what this is all about. The analogy that best applies here is something that is well known to new immigrants in North America and to the local young men and women who -- just out of school -- apply for their first job. The new immigrants are asked if they have Canadian experience; the local youngsters are asked if they have a letter of recommendation from someone that knows them. To see the parallel between all of these situations you must understand that the word wasta is derived from the word “wassat” which translates into the English word “middle”. Thus in Arabic, the wasta is a letter of recommendation written by a third party -- an “intermediary” that may have been a previous employer or is a lawyer, a banker, a public notary or some such personality. Unfortunately, the people who move from the farm to the city do not usually have urban experience and do not carry with them a letter of recommendation. They find it difficult to get a job right away which is something we can deplore but cannot ascribe to a hopelessly corrupt system. However, in a culture such as the Egyptian where a weakness in the system is expected to be responded to and compensated for immediately, the word corruption is used loosely to describe the failure of the people who are in charge of alleviating the situation to do so immediately. As can be seen, the word corruption is here used to mean ineptitude.
Now, why is it that big hay is made of this kind of non-events in publications as prestigious as the New York Times? The answer is that the Jewish Lobby has repeatedly failed to drive the wedge between America and Egypt even after using all the ammunition it had at its disposal. Thus, the Lobby was forced to turn up a sleight of hand as a last desperate act to move things in its direction. But the result so far has been a dubious one for the following reasons: organizations were set-up to draw up indexes to measure, rate or rank the nations of the world in terms that range from the income of families to the weight of the citizens. Such organizations do the ratings according to criteria they publish and apply universally. For some mysterious reason, however, there is one exception to this rule where the rating is not done according to universal criteria. It is the rating of corruption which they leave up to the people of each country to do themselves by applying criteria that are chosen in accordance with the local culture. This being the case, you would expect that no one who wants to appear honest, let alone someone as prestigious as the new York Times, would want to take advantage of the confusion that results when they use words that mean one thing in one setting and another thing in another setting without first explaining what is involved. Yet, this is exactly where the New York Times consistently fails and yes, this failure ranks as an outright intellectual fraud because it is obviously committed as a deliberate act. But then again, when it comes to carrying water for the Jewish Lobby, there is nothing that the New York Times will not do deliberately or otherwise.
When a publication like the new York Times writes about corruption, the word is automatically associated with images of Enron, Madoff and all the others. When a country like Egypt is then associated with the same word without explanation as to the local context in which the word is used, the readers of the new York Times do not see a kid selling subsidized bread at the regular price or see a farmer looking for a job having no letter of recommendation. Instead, they see an Egyptian ogre loot the country the way that some people do in America. Insidious by its nature, this is such a deliberate lie, it is not the kind of journalism that is expected of the New York Times. It is journalistic prostitution that stands at par with the Congressional prostitution of the hopelessly corrupt nation that America has become. It is, in fact, corruption of the worst kind because it promotes self delusion and feeds on it as it sends the country into a never ending downward spiral.
Can there be something worse than that? Of course there can be. No matter how bad you have become, there is always someone that can prove to be worse than you. And if not, you can always outdo yourself and show the world how much worse you can become when you want to. Horrendous isn't it? Yes it is and here is the sordid story to prove it. It happened a month or two ago while I was reading that same new York Times but I got so disgusted reading the thing, I did not take notes and did not finish reading the story either. Look, my friend, there is an organization that has been rating the universities of the world according to published criteria that are out there for everyone to see. Not once did someone object to the choices that the organization has made over the decades. Not once that is, except this one time when the organization rated the University of Alexandria in Egypt highly and someone objected. The New York Times promptly picked up the article of objection and published it. I started to read the article and, to put it bluntly, it was intellectual masturbation of the most Jewish kind. The beating of the intellectual balls was so frantic that the computer began to ejaculate syphilis with stars of David streaming out of it like a deadly disease. I realized there and then that I was seeing something worse than journalistic prostitution; I was seeing an act of journalistic pornography. And I turned off the computer to turn off the new York Times. And what a relief that was!
What the editors of the New York Times did in effect was that they avoided setting a standard of journalistic excellence and stick by it the way things are done in the places where they trumpet the rule of law. Instead, these editors have adopted a flexible sort of morality whereby they pick and choose the criteria that suit them best at every moment. This approach has made it possible for them to paint a country like Egypt with a bad brush based on the criteria that do the job in each circumstance. For example, since the day nearly six decades ago when the Americans tried to bribe the Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, and he used the money to build the famous Cairo Tower as a monument to America's stupidity, the world has known that the Egyptians are incorruptible. Thus, if and when they are tested according to universal criteria, the Egyptians come out way, way, way ahead of everyone else. By comparison, the Israelis come out way, way, way behind everyone. In consequence of this reality, the New York Times now uses the local criteria whereby the Egyptian people will say they have a problem with corruption because kids are allowed to buy bread at a subsidized price and sell it at a regular price and because farmers are not given a job right away when they do not have a wasta. This happens at a time when the Israelis will say that they have no problem with corruption because all that they have had so far were presidents and prime ministers each and everyone of whom was caught stealing, taking bribes, engaging in serial rape and the like; and they have had functionaries ranging in rank from border guards to army generals that engaged in international prostitution, human smuggling, trafficking in drugs, trafficking in weapons and body parts but nothing worse than that. And the New York Times has concluded, based on this evidence, that Egypt is plagued with a hopelessly corrupt system whereas Israel is the ooonly country in the Middle East where angels live and conduct themselves like veritable saints.
The idea, therefore, was never to practice good journalism at the New York Times or to appear to do so by sticking to the accepted journalistic norms of telling the truth as best they can while running the joint in accordance with a fixed set of criteria. Instead, the editors of that publication have chosen to become the open advocates of the Jewish causes by turning themselves into the shameless mouthpieces of the Jewish Lobby. But there is more than that. Because some Jews believe that their religion began with the “Exodus” from Egypt, these people have considered it the basic tenet of their religion to use every means at their disposal to attack Egypt. This is their religion and to them, badmouthing Egypt is the way that they conduct a prayer, something they like to do as often as they can. Thus, in taking the direction that it has, the New York Times has joined these people in prayer whereby it is badmouthing Egypt at every turn thus trumpeting not the rule of law but the worship of the mythical Jew of the Exodus. It is the worship of the individual and not any individual; it is the worship of the sickest of all individuals – the one whose DNA is made of moral and cultural syphilis.
No one sane in the world will expect the New York Times to become a respected newspaper again. What a loss! What a shame!