The New York Times wants to tell the world that China is the most democratic country in the world and the entire history of this planet. Honest. Or else they don't know what they are writing about. More precisely they don't know what their writers are writing about. Look here, my friend. They have an article written by one of their own and published on May 28, 2011 under the title: “Pay Attention”. The piece is basically a way they have employed to talk to the Administration. This is how they put the thing: “But I only hope that Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton understand that right now -- right this second -- Egypt needs something more from Washington than money: quiet, behind-the-scenes engagement with Egypt’s ruling generals over how to complete the transition to democracy here.”
Further down the article they elaborate on that thought by saying this: “That said, though, it is important that senior U.S. officials engage quietly with the generals and encourage them to take heed of the many Egyptian voices that are raising legitimate concerns about a premature runoff.” And they end the piece like this: “I just hope the Obama team is paying attention. This is so much more important than Libya.”
And so you ask yourself what might be the thing that triggered this river of thoughts and insights on their part. Well, you find the answer to this question in the very first sentence of the piece. It goes like this: “I had some time to kill ... so I rummaged through the 'Egyptian Treasures' shop. I ... was intrigued by a stuffed camel ... I turned it over to see where it was manufactured, it read: 'Made in China.'”
So you say to yourself that if the logic of the New York Times is to the effect that Egypt needs assistance with its march to democracy because it does not manufacture its own souvenirs such as the stuffed camels which it imports from somewhere else, then it must be that China is a democratic country because it makes those camels. Moreover, China makes souvenirs like the Eiffel Tower of France, the Big Ben of Britain and the Empire State building of America, not to forget the American flag which also happens to be an icon that belongs to America. And all this must say to the New York Times that China is the most democratic thing in the world today and the most democratic thing this planet has ever seen since the beginning of time.
But then the part of your brain which scans for the logic of what you read sends out frantic signals indicating that a mammoth deficiency in logic has been detected. You look closely and swear by the fleas of all the camels roaming this planet that you have never seen anything as illogical as this. It is the following: If China is more democratic than America then why would the New York Times ask America to tell Egypt about democracy and not ask China to take charge of this? As we say in Canada; eh!
But what is the problem in Egypt according to these people that they want America to stick its nose in their affairs? Well, they seem to have talked to a number of prominent people over there who are also key players in the events which are unfolding at this time. Here is a sample of what they heard in Egypt as quoted in the article:
“We have had a revolution here that succeeded -- but is not in power. So the goals of the revolution are being applied by an agent, the army, which I think is sincere in wanting to do the right things, but it is not by nature revolutionary.” This is according to the Egyptian novelist Alaa Al Aswany.
“Liberal people are feeling some concerns that they made the revolution and the Muslim Brotherhood can now take it. This is not true.” This is according to Esam el-Erian a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood Party.
“The liberal parties need more time to organize.” This is according to Naguib Sawiris who is an Egyptian billionaire that organized one of the liberal parties and wants all liberal groups to run under one banner so as not to split the liberal vote.
“You will have an unrepresentative Parliament writing an unrepresentative Constitution.” This is according to Mohamed ElBaradei, the former international atomic energy czar now leader of a reform party discussing the possibility that the Brotherhood may win big in the September election.
“Because the Muslim Brotherhood is ready, they want elections first ... We as secular forces prefer to have some time to consolidate our parties. We must thank the army for the role it played. But it was our revolution, not a coup d’état. ... If there are fair elections, the Muslim Brotherhood will only get 20 percent.” This is according to Osama Ghazali Harb, a leader of another reform party.
When they have this kind of “vibrant” democracy vibrating in Egypt only months after the revolution, what makes the folks at the New York Times believe that Egypt needs: “...quiet, behind-the-scenes engagement with Egypt’s ruling generals over how to complete the transition to democracy here.” or that Egtpt needs this: “...engage quietly with the generals and encourage them to take heed of the many Egyptian voices that are raising legitimate concerns about a premature runoff.”
Are the folks at the New York Times sick or something? Or are they just plain stupid? When I first came to this part of the world nearly half a century ago I was told about an Arab saying that I never heard of it in Arabic because it was never said in Arabic. Besides, I did not see the need for someone to ever want to say something like that. This is the saying: “May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits.”
But you know what my friend; I am changing my mind and I am now telling the folks at the New York Times: May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits. There! I got it off my chest.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
Pulling The Strings Of The Maestro
Sodomizing a hotel maid by a visiting foreign Jew was not the only act of pornography committed in America lately; America itself was sodomized by Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel when he desecrated the Oval Office of the White House a few days later and tried to verbally rape the country that has helped what he calls his ”people” by so much over so many years. And when you see the depraved characters in the American press and politics who have gone on television or have written what constitutes a continuation of the moral rape of their country, you ask yourself how a nation that was so respected not long ago became the home of this many pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos all vying for the affection of one and the same rapist. Poverty in some backward countries has pushed the people there to sell their children for money and call it adoption; likewise moral depravity in America has pushed the hungry in the press and political circles to sell their own country and its President to the worldwide champion of debauchery then threw themselves at his feet to kiss them.
In trying to make sense of a disgustingly senseless spectacle, you think about the situation long and hard and you fail to come up with an answer that can hint at any sense at all but you manage to come up with a number of ideas, a whole bunch of images and a few analogies like those that follow.
When you control the agenda of an organization, you are like the maestro who conducts an orchestra; you direct the band and get everyone to dance to your tune. When you run a small organization your every move is watched by the various players whose job it is to respond to your signals almost instantly. But when you run a large bureaucratic organization, you are served by a number of key aids who sift through the many choices that the organization encounters; they select what they consider to be appropriate and send them to you for final decision. When you receive the selection, you choose the pieces that will form the repertoire you wish to play and arrange them in the order that you will play them. When this whole process is done with, you find yourself directing a complete program as well as orchestrating each piece you play.
The larger the organization that you run, the more it is made of moving parts and the more the things that can go wrong with it. If and when something does go wrong, the bureaucratic music will not meet the level that is expected of it. Weighed on a scale that ranges from bad performance to good performance, you could have a note that is played off key once in a while or you could have an entire rendition that sounds like a rehearsal by a group of amateurs or you could have a performance that sits between the two extremes. As director and maestro, you may find that the problem emanates at the level of the aids manning the key posts or you may find that the problem emanates at the level of players who were badly trained or you may find a much worse situation where the problem permeates the entire orchestra as if it were an infected organism. If the latter is the case, you will realize each time you conduct the orchestra that you are facing a disastrous situation; and so will the audience which will blame the players but also blame you along with them.
Whether the organization is an orchestra or a bureaucratic setup, fixing it can mean fine tuning parts of the operation or reworking the whole thing. Whether you do one or you do the other, you will find that fixing a bureaucracy of individuals is harder than fixing an orchestra of musicians because the players in a bureaucracy rarely communicate with each other whereas the musicians hear each other by necessity and respond to one another with every note they play. And this is where the skills of a maestro in a bureaucratic organization count for something because a good leader can make a big difference. It is that the head of an organization should be in the business of making the staff communicate with him as well as with each other. And if you are lucky enough to have someone like this run your bureaucracy, you should still not expect to see an exceptional performance each and every time because a good maestro can fix a bad orchestra that wants to improve but cannot do well with a good orchestra when someone inside it consistently plays the wrong notes.
And so we ask how it is that something like this can happen. And the answer is that a big organization is made of individuals all of whom may not share the same view of the world or have the same interests at heart; thus they could be viewing matters differently from one another and differently from the leader. The higher the key position that these people occupy, the more annoying becomes the discordant note that they play and the more they can hurt the program of the maestro. These people may be underlings but they wield the power and they have the authority to work independently. Knowing that the moves of the maestro are watched by everyone in the organization and responded to almost instantly, they do not act to be in harmony with the maestro or with the other players; they act to pull the strings of the maestro thus manipulate him to make the orchestra play the tunes they choose not the tunes he chooses.
The biggest organization you can have where things can go wrong and often do is the ship of state. When it is run by a weak leader who sits at the helm and does little to govern the nation, a power vacuum is created where the underlings that staff the organization fill the void by implementing the agenda they cobble up on their own. But because in a case like this the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, members of the staff often work at cross purposes and neutralize the efforts of each other -- a situation that results in the ship of state staying still and going nowhere. If this situation persists for a long period of time, the nation begins to show symptoms similar to those of an infected organism, a condition that will prompt an outside group to pose as doctor and offer to help, an offer that the staff will reject off hand. If the outside group is well organized which these people always are, it will have an advantage over the staff of the ship of state because these people are often disorganized. A battle to control the ship will be triggered and a power struggle will ensue during which some members of the staff will be defeated and removed by pink slip or by a letter of resignation that is, in effect, a letter of forced resignation. The remaining members of the staff will then act on the principle that if you cannot beat them you join them and will allow themselves to be absorbed by the outside group now considered to be very much the inside group and the one in charge.
This is how America was transformed from a superpower to a slouching giant governed not by the people who were elected to represent the nation but the people who were trained to take orders from the Jewish lobby, an organization that has become a supranational structure arching over all walks of American life. This was the situation at the start of the Twenty First Century when a young man whose slogan was “Yes we can” ran for President and was elected with a mandate to transform the country. He was chosen to lead because the young people of the nation who could no longer stand the discordant notes they were hearing all the time knew that there was something wrong with their ship of state but did not know what exactly the problem was. They wanted someone to tell them the truth and to reverse the situation; and so they pinned their hopes on Barack Obama whose promise was that he can deliver. They helped him get elected but after two and a half years of his rule, they wondered why matters have not changed as much as they had expected. It then began to dawn on them that the serial rapists who took control of their country were not going to let it escape from their grip no matter who stood at the helm of the ship. And the young people of America realized there was going to be a struggle for the soul of their country, one that will be prolonged but worthwhile to have.
What is happening now and what the American people are beginning to see is the extent to which the Jewish lobby is influencing their elected representatives and they resent what they see. Furthermore, they are beginning to learn how that situation has developed under their noses and those of their elders without someone noticing it or sounding the alarm. In fact, since the kidnapping of a newspaper heiress and the making of a film about her rape, many books and articles were written about the methods employed by the professional pimps and rapists who sweet talk young girls and boys to lure them into their confidence then “break” them with repeated sessions of gang rape before initiating them into the business of prostitution. And the people of America see the parallel between these methods and the way that the professional pimps and rapists of the Jewish lobby do their odious work.
The people of America are becoming increasingly aware that members of the infamous lobby approach the young Americans who show inclination to serve their country and recruit them to do something else. They sweet talk them into their confidence then convince them to take a trip to Israel where the youngsters are assaulted psychologically, raped emotionally and made to feel guilty about incidents they had nothing to do with, incidents that happened three quarters of a century ago in a far away place they barely heard about. Upon their return home from Israel, the youngsters are further subjected to a period of indoctrination whereby they are broken psychologically and prepared mentally to become the political pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos such as those that make up the bulk of America's political and media classes today. These are the people who were trained to do one thing only: Serve not the country that is America but serve Israel which they no longer distinguish from America as they were conditioned to see no daylight between the two. And these are the people who shamelessly appear on television or write articles in which they joyfully reenact their sodomy for the whole world to see and share in the joy. Just watch and read Walter Russell Meade and wonder what the hell he is thinking.
Yet, this was not the only time that the Jewish organizations had been on the move trying to implement their pornographic agenda. Something like it began to happen in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin wall when the former Warsaw Pact countries were infiltrated by the Jewish organizations who tried to use America to take control of those countries. They promised the people there to make the American Congress work for them if they bowed to their wishes and the wishes of Israel. In response, the media people and the politicians over there began to run around trumpeting the friendship they were forging with Israel but the public quickly got sick of the spectacle and said so loudly and clearly. This happened because the people realized that the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing which allowed the Jewish foreigners to come talk to them at a time when they themselves were not talking to each other. And the people of those countries understood that those who were raping America had come to rape them too in their own countries and in their home. And so they revolted.
In response to the show of disgust by the public, everyone that held a trumpet turned on a dime, threw away the trumpet and wore a badge that said: “I am not a Jew, never have been one and never will be”. Thus, acting as they did, the people of the former Warsaw Pact have demonstrated that they could – yes they could. As for the Jewish organizations, they found themselves unable to use America to rape the world so they doubled the effort to maintain their control of America and maintain the ability to keep on raping her. And this situation will continue to dominate till someone that can will come to the fore and put an end to it.
The hope is that this can happen before something unstoppable is unleashed. And this prompts the question as to whether or not President Obama can. Yes, the question is whether or not he can do something similar to what Ronald Reagan did by going over the head of Congress to tell the people of America why he wants them to stand with him in the struggle to wrest their country from the grip of the Israeli rapists who come to rape America and the American people in their country, in their hotels and in their homes. Yes, can Obama get the American people to talk to each other about this scourge and help him get rid of it once and for all?
In trying to make sense of a disgustingly senseless spectacle, you think about the situation long and hard and you fail to come up with an answer that can hint at any sense at all but you manage to come up with a number of ideas, a whole bunch of images and a few analogies like those that follow.
When you control the agenda of an organization, you are like the maestro who conducts an orchestra; you direct the band and get everyone to dance to your tune. When you run a small organization your every move is watched by the various players whose job it is to respond to your signals almost instantly. But when you run a large bureaucratic organization, you are served by a number of key aids who sift through the many choices that the organization encounters; they select what they consider to be appropriate and send them to you for final decision. When you receive the selection, you choose the pieces that will form the repertoire you wish to play and arrange them in the order that you will play them. When this whole process is done with, you find yourself directing a complete program as well as orchestrating each piece you play.
The larger the organization that you run, the more it is made of moving parts and the more the things that can go wrong with it. If and when something does go wrong, the bureaucratic music will not meet the level that is expected of it. Weighed on a scale that ranges from bad performance to good performance, you could have a note that is played off key once in a while or you could have an entire rendition that sounds like a rehearsal by a group of amateurs or you could have a performance that sits between the two extremes. As director and maestro, you may find that the problem emanates at the level of the aids manning the key posts or you may find that the problem emanates at the level of players who were badly trained or you may find a much worse situation where the problem permeates the entire orchestra as if it were an infected organism. If the latter is the case, you will realize each time you conduct the orchestra that you are facing a disastrous situation; and so will the audience which will blame the players but also blame you along with them.
Whether the organization is an orchestra or a bureaucratic setup, fixing it can mean fine tuning parts of the operation or reworking the whole thing. Whether you do one or you do the other, you will find that fixing a bureaucracy of individuals is harder than fixing an orchestra of musicians because the players in a bureaucracy rarely communicate with each other whereas the musicians hear each other by necessity and respond to one another with every note they play. And this is where the skills of a maestro in a bureaucratic organization count for something because a good leader can make a big difference. It is that the head of an organization should be in the business of making the staff communicate with him as well as with each other. And if you are lucky enough to have someone like this run your bureaucracy, you should still not expect to see an exceptional performance each and every time because a good maestro can fix a bad orchestra that wants to improve but cannot do well with a good orchestra when someone inside it consistently plays the wrong notes.
And so we ask how it is that something like this can happen. And the answer is that a big organization is made of individuals all of whom may not share the same view of the world or have the same interests at heart; thus they could be viewing matters differently from one another and differently from the leader. The higher the key position that these people occupy, the more annoying becomes the discordant note that they play and the more they can hurt the program of the maestro. These people may be underlings but they wield the power and they have the authority to work independently. Knowing that the moves of the maestro are watched by everyone in the organization and responded to almost instantly, they do not act to be in harmony with the maestro or with the other players; they act to pull the strings of the maestro thus manipulate him to make the orchestra play the tunes they choose not the tunes he chooses.
The biggest organization you can have where things can go wrong and often do is the ship of state. When it is run by a weak leader who sits at the helm and does little to govern the nation, a power vacuum is created where the underlings that staff the organization fill the void by implementing the agenda they cobble up on their own. But because in a case like this the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, members of the staff often work at cross purposes and neutralize the efforts of each other -- a situation that results in the ship of state staying still and going nowhere. If this situation persists for a long period of time, the nation begins to show symptoms similar to those of an infected organism, a condition that will prompt an outside group to pose as doctor and offer to help, an offer that the staff will reject off hand. If the outside group is well organized which these people always are, it will have an advantage over the staff of the ship of state because these people are often disorganized. A battle to control the ship will be triggered and a power struggle will ensue during which some members of the staff will be defeated and removed by pink slip or by a letter of resignation that is, in effect, a letter of forced resignation. The remaining members of the staff will then act on the principle that if you cannot beat them you join them and will allow themselves to be absorbed by the outside group now considered to be very much the inside group and the one in charge.
This is how America was transformed from a superpower to a slouching giant governed not by the people who were elected to represent the nation but the people who were trained to take orders from the Jewish lobby, an organization that has become a supranational structure arching over all walks of American life. This was the situation at the start of the Twenty First Century when a young man whose slogan was “Yes we can” ran for President and was elected with a mandate to transform the country. He was chosen to lead because the young people of the nation who could no longer stand the discordant notes they were hearing all the time knew that there was something wrong with their ship of state but did not know what exactly the problem was. They wanted someone to tell them the truth and to reverse the situation; and so they pinned their hopes on Barack Obama whose promise was that he can deliver. They helped him get elected but after two and a half years of his rule, they wondered why matters have not changed as much as they had expected. It then began to dawn on them that the serial rapists who took control of their country were not going to let it escape from their grip no matter who stood at the helm of the ship. And the young people of America realized there was going to be a struggle for the soul of their country, one that will be prolonged but worthwhile to have.
What is happening now and what the American people are beginning to see is the extent to which the Jewish lobby is influencing their elected representatives and they resent what they see. Furthermore, they are beginning to learn how that situation has developed under their noses and those of their elders without someone noticing it or sounding the alarm. In fact, since the kidnapping of a newspaper heiress and the making of a film about her rape, many books and articles were written about the methods employed by the professional pimps and rapists who sweet talk young girls and boys to lure them into their confidence then “break” them with repeated sessions of gang rape before initiating them into the business of prostitution. And the people of America see the parallel between these methods and the way that the professional pimps and rapists of the Jewish lobby do their odious work.
The people of America are becoming increasingly aware that members of the infamous lobby approach the young Americans who show inclination to serve their country and recruit them to do something else. They sweet talk them into their confidence then convince them to take a trip to Israel where the youngsters are assaulted psychologically, raped emotionally and made to feel guilty about incidents they had nothing to do with, incidents that happened three quarters of a century ago in a far away place they barely heard about. Upon their return home from Israel, the youngsters are further subjected to a period of indoctrination whereby they are broken psychologically and prepared mentally to become the political pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos such as those that make up the bulk of America's political and media classes today. These are the people who were trained to do one thing only: Serve not the country that is America but serve Israel which they no longer distinguish from America as they were conditioned to see no daylight between the two. And these are the people who shamelessly appear on television or write articles in which they joyfully reenact their sodomy for the whole world to see and share in the joy. Just watch and read Walter Russell Meade and wonder what the hell he is thinking.
Yet, this was not the only time that the Jewish organizations had been on the move trying to implement their pornographic agenda. Something like it began to happen in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin wall when the former Warsaw Pact countries were infiltrated by the Jewish organizations who tried to use America to take control of those countries. They promised the people there to make the American Congress work for them if they bowed to their wishes and the wishes of Israel. In response, the media people and the politicians over there began to run around trumpeting the friendship they were forging with Israel but the public quickly got sick of the spectacle and said so loudly and clearly. This happened because the people realized that the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing which allowed the Jewish foreigners to come talk to them at a time when they themselves were not talking to each other. And the people of those countries understood that those who were raping America had come to rape them too in their own countries and in their home. And so they revolted.
In response to the show of disgust by the public, everyone that held a trumpet turned on a dime, threw away the trumpet and wore a badge that said: “I am not a Jew, never have been one and never will be”. Thus, acting as they did, the people of the former Warsaw Pact have demonstrated that they could – yes they could. As for the Jewish organizations, they found themselves unable to use America to rape the world so they doubled the effort to maintain their control of America and maintain the ability to keep on raping her. And this situation will continue to dominate till someone that can will come to the fore and put an end to it.
The hope is that this can happen before something unstoppable is unleashed. And this prompts the question as to whether or not President Obama can. Yes, the question is whether or not he can do something similar to what Ronald Reagan did by going over the head of Congress to tell the people of America why he wants them to stand with him in the struggle to wrest their country from the grip of the Israeli rapists who come to rape America and the American people in their country, in their hotels and in their homes. Yes, can Obama get the American people to talk to each other about this scourge and help him get rid of it once and for all?
Monday, May 23, 2011
Politico-Industrial Growth Of The Democracies
The American President Barack Obama gave a speech on May 19, 2011 on the Middle East and North Africa. It is a comprehensive speech that touches on many subjects, most of which I shall take up and discuss in the days and weeks ahead. For now, there is one sentence in the speech that I would like to discuss in depth. It is this: “If you take out oil exports, this region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland.” The reason why I wish to do this is because the mere uttering of this sentence by the President of the United Sates at this time in a speech that is as important as this carries a meaning that stands tall and apart from what the words of the sentence convey.
Divorced from everything else and standing alone, the sentence surprises me because it is an utterance that is not meant to convey meaningful information but is meant to shock the audience. More than that, it is part of a destructive pattern intended to convey a false image of the Arabs, something that the President must have been unaware of since he said he wants to build bridges and reach out to these people. Here is a description of how the destructive pattern comes about and how it looks when it has run its course: The Arabs initiate an internal debate or they issue a report in which they make comparisons to illustrate a point. The ever opportunistic Jewish propaganda machine of perpetual hate and incitement picks up some of the Arab ideas and mentions them out of context to show “in the words of the Arabs themselves” that they lag behind in some area. To have an even bigger impact on audiences in America and elsewhere, the propaganda machine that is also in charge of the White House speech writers gets the President of the United States to utter the words in a context that is designed to deliver maximum shock and paralyze whatever dialogue may exist between the Arabs and America. One notorious example along this line came about in the past when George the W was made to say that Spain had a GDP larger than the combined GDPs of all the Arab nations. It was a falsehood that would have been useless and meaningless even if it were true; and in fact, it realized no immediate gain but squandered plenty of potential gains because people were misled about the situation on the ground.
The sentence uttered by the current President is also false, meaningless and useless. And you can see this when you juxtapose it with another sentence that came in the same speech. It is this: “Satellite television and the Internet provide a window into ... a world of astonishing progress in places like India...” This is significant because Switzerland has a population of 7.5 million people and the country exports goods and services to the tune of 250 billion dollars. This is comparable to the exports of India which has a population 160 times larger standing at 1,200 million people and is, according to Mr. Obama, a place of astonishing progress. Now, the Middle East has a population that stands at 400 million people, a third that of India. And this is where comes the mind boggling part. If the region exports as much as Switzerland, it means that it exports as much as India which makes it so that on a per capita basis, the region exports 3 times as much as India. Should this suggest that the Middle East performance is 3 times better than astonishingly progressive India? Is that it, Mr. President? Well, we already know the answer to this question: It is no, this is not it. The reality is that this part of the speech was stuck in there to convey the message that the Arabs lag behind both Switzerland and India therefore America must and probably will try to let the Jewish lobby pilot it to the Middle East where it will attempt to fix the Arab world and make it as astonishingly progressive as India and Switzerland. Well, I have news: This kind of talk has never served a useful purpose because the Arabs cannot be motivated to welcome the Americans with open arms following a fantasy talk of this kind.
And guess who or what is missing in this artificial, meaningless and useless talk. Two things are missing. The first is the fundamental understanding of a simple truth based on mathematics. It is this: If A equals C; and if B equals C, therefore A equals B. The second missing thing is the mention of China. And this is because the way that the Jewish propaganda machine (led by Tom Friedman of the New York Times) originally presented the argument was to compare the Arab world with China and India among others, not just India. Apparently, incapable of seeing the irony in the fact that he has been leading the cries of lamentation about a China that is powering ahead of America, Friedman missed the logical consequence of him asserting that the Arab progress was inferior to that of China while at the same time lamenting that the American progress was inferior to that of China. The logically challenged columnist could not see that in doing this, he was equating the progress of America with that of the Arabs. He still does not know it but he made himself look like the self appointed emperor who wore a crown and no clothes. But do not despair, my friend, because the image of the naked emperor is one that Mr. Obama has avoided when he omitted to mention China in the speech. In fact, it looks like he deliberately avoided mentioning that country because he knows that he too has lamented America's lag behind China on a number of occasions. But the thing is that he is logical enough to avoid falling into the trap where Friedman has fallen. Next time, however, he should completely avoid getting involved in this kind of talk because it leads nowhere and serves only to strip the imperial clothes off its participants.
We came to these conclusions by looking at the different parts of the President's speech and analyzing them. We now look at the context in which the Arabs are having their internal debates where we find a goldmine of ideas. It is that some Arab countries have oil and some don't. Those that have it worry about the day when the resource that is giving them a high standard of living will be depleted. To prepare for this day, they use the wealth generated by the sale of oil to industrialize and thus have something to fall back on when the oil will be gone. To measure the progress they make in this regard, they frequently compare their non-oil exports with the totality of their exports. They do this separately for each country that depends on oil then add up the numbers and generate one set of figures to represent the entire Arab world as if it were a single economic region modeled after the European Union, a group that the Arabs hope to emulate someday. As of now, however, the Arabs have a population of about 330 million people which is less than the 400 million mentioned in the President's speech. For a reason that remains a mystery to me, it looks like someone has included the population of non-Arab Iran in that figure.
What is refreshing about the internal Arab debate with regard to the matter of making a choice in economics and governance is that the debate touches solely on economics and governance and remains devoid of politics and political gamesmanship. What I find most interesting about it is the part where the merits and demerits are laid out with regard to the growth that is generated through export as opposed to the growth that is generated by internal consumption. I have had views on this matter for a long time and had the opportunity to add to them by being exposed to the internal debate of the Arabs. I shall present both sides of the argument the best way that I can while making the situation in Egypt the backdrop of my presentation.
My view on the relationship that exists between industry and political governance started to take shape when I began to study the Industrial Revolution. I concentrated on Europe where that Revolution began and where the social revolutions were later triggered. I saw that the aim of the social revolutions was to bring political governance in line with the industrial progress that was being made and was accelerating. I also saw the two revolutions as having a symbiotic existence, each feeding the other and feeding on it in a relationship that was sometimes violent and sometimes quiet but one that helped both revolutions to grow organically over a long period of time. The end result has been that a system of quasi egalitarian justice was born to replace the system of serfdom that had been in existence for centuries. We now call what we see in Europe the liberal democracies of the West which -- for the purpose of this discussion – we can divorce from the period when colonialism played a role in shaping them.
Progress in those countries generally came about more or less evenly because it happened over a period of time that was long enough to allow for corrective measures to be introduced when distortions began to show up as they inevitably do where there is growth and there is change. When at times, the distortions became so exaggerated that something harsher needed to be done, it was done voluntarily by those who held the power and relinquished some of it; or the change was brought about by violent means when those who were voiceless staged a revolt and wrested the power. And this sort of thing happened on and off until a new system of governance was finally born. The system kept shaping and reshaping itself through decades of evolution which is a period I call: “The politico-industrial growth of liberal democracies.” To my surprise, I discovered that it was the primitive state of transportation at that time which gave the economic system the semblance of evenness that characterizes the liberal democracies of today. It happened because the early barons of industry developed a dependence on the local markets where they sold their products and thus helped generate the growth that their factories needed. With the production and the consumption done locally, what the workers wanted more than anything else was to share in the ownership of the means of production. They organized themselves and fought to secure gains in this area, and they won a few battles. The consequence has been that the masses came to share in the wealth that they produce but they also learned that when they organize they develop the means to participate in the governance of the country.
The way things stand now is that transportation is no longer a problem that is big enough to intimidate the industrialists of today. They produce in one place on the globe and sell in another place; they even produce parts and components in several places at the same time to assemble them in a different place altogether and sell the finished product in yet another place. And the reason why today's industrialists tend to do this is that they seek to produce in places where the cost of production is cheap and seek to sell in the places where the purchasing power is high. This means that the workers and the entire population can be kept poor in the places where the products are made and yet these same people are asked to enter into a bidding war to buy what they produce against people who live far away and have several times the purchasing power that they do. Unable to lead a dignified life under these conditions, the people in the poorer places learn to agitate -- not because they seek to participate in the ownership of the means of production as did their counterparts in Europe of old -- but to be paid higher wages and salaries. Besides, the capital markets of today are highly developed and those who wish to own the means of production can do so provided they have the money to buy stocks. And when you add to this the idea that people invest some of their earnings in securities to prepare for retirement, you can see why being paid more money becomes an important issue in modern times.
Well then, things look like they will work out nicely, do they not? Maybe. But let's look briefly at a piece of history after which you may judge for yourself. Several decades ago most countries in the world decided to open themselves to trade and investment, a move that came to be known as Globalization. It did not take long for the people of the world to theorize that the effect of this move was the coming together of the rich in the developed world and the newly enriched in the developing world. These people came together in a self serving alliance through a sinister sort of unspoken conspiracy. The coming together was seen as a way to exploit the poor in the poorer countries by making them work at subsistence levels; and it was seen as a way to fleece the middle class in the richer countries by sending them to the unemployment lines while sending their jobs abroad. The rich were seen as telling the first that they should live poorly now to live better tomorrow; and telling the second that whether or not they have a job, they can borrow against their home and live the good life by consuming the cheap products they import for them from abroad. When this situation became well understood, it caused the people of the world to riot every time they had the opportunity to do so. And the opportunities came about each time that a meeting of the World Bank or the IMF were held anywhere on the planet because the people saw these institutions along with the G-7, G-8 and G-20 as being complicit in the conspiracy to exploit and to fleece them for the benefit of the very rich.
Put in a nutshell, the inescapable conclusion is that globalization has led to an increase in exports which led to the widening of the gap between rich and poor. Some individuals in some countries became rich at the expense of others and bought their way into the corridors of power. The result has been that no improvement was allowed to take hold with regard to the system of governance. And while at first blush it looks like South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong -- who made undeniable and visible progress -- have avoided being swept by that trend, it is becoming increasingly clear that their progress came about because Britain and the United States propped them up like spoiled children to show their communist neighbors that capitalism was better than the system they followed. The gambit worked because shortly thereafter mainland China opened its own economy and began to benefit hugely when the industrial barons of Taiwan and Hong Kong moved to the mainland taking with them the know-how that the Britons and the Americans had brought to their provinces. Other than that, however, everyone else in South Asia and Latin America cursed the day they took the advice of the IMF and the World Bank and ran their economies accordingly because it was the advice that put them in debt and messed up their economies.
Drowning in a debt that cut them off from the rest of the world, those countries started to develop their local markets in order to realize the growth that the economy desperately needed. Contrary to what the IMF and the World Bank were preaching, the dependence on the local markets raised the standard of living for everyone because the workers were paid enough to buy the products they were making. Moreover, with a rising standard of living and more opportunities opening to them, the people were inclined to seek advancement by acquiring better training and more education. They also became more active in the political life of the country, a move that helped to put down roots for a new kind of democracy to flourish. Brazil is in the forefront of this movement.
In Egypt today a group of people is advocating reliance on the local market to grow the economy organically the way that Europe did in the early stages of its industrialization. Another group says that the country should take advantage of the many free trade agreements the previous regime has signed with the rest of the world to turn Egypt into the factory of the Middle East, Africa and Europe and boost export. These people want to see the Egyptian economy grow the way that the Chinese economy did.
You judge for yourself who is right and who is wrong then wait for the future to render its verdict.
Divorced from everything else and standing alone, the sentence surprises me because it is an utterance that is not meant to convey meaningful information but is meant to shock the audience. More than that, it is part of a destructive pattern intended to convey a false image of the Arabs, something that the President must have been unaware of since he said he wants to build bridges and reach out to these people. Here is a description of how the destructive pattern comes about and how it looks when it has run its course: The Arabs initiate an internal debate or they issue a report in which they make comparisons to illustrate a point. The ever opportunistic Jewish propaganda machine of perpetual hate and incitement picks up some of the Arab ideas and mentions them out of context to show “in the words of the Arabs themselves” that they lag behind in some area. To have an even bigger impact on audiences in America and elsewhere, the propaganda machine that is also in charge of the White House speech writers gets the President of the United States to utter the words in a context that is designed to deliver maximum shock and paralyze whatever dialogue may exist between the Arabs and America. One notorious example along this line came about in the past when George the W was made to say that Spain had a GDP larger than the combined GDPs of all the Arab nations. It was a falsehood that would have been useless and meaningless even if it were true; and in fact, it realized no immediate gain but squandered plenty of potential gains because people were misled about the situation on the ground.
The sentence uttered by the current President is also false, meaningless and useless. And you can see this when you juxtapose it with another sentence that came in the same speech. It is this: “Satellite television and the Internet provide a window into ... a world of astonishing progress in places like India...” This is significant because Switzerland has a population of 7.5 million people and the country exports goods and services to the tune of 250 billion dollars. This is comparable to the exports of India which has a population 160 times larger standing at 1,200 million people and is, according to Mr. Obama, a place of astonishing progress. Now, the Middle East has a population that stands at 400 million people, a third that of India. And this is where comes the mind boggling part. If the region exports as much as Switzerland, it means that it exports as much as India which makes it so that on a per capita basis, the region exports 3 times as much as India. Should this suggest that the Middle East performance is 3 times better than astonishingly progressive India? Is that it, Mr. President? Well, we already know the answer to this question: It is no, this is not it. The reality is that this part of the speech was stuck in there to convey the message that the Arabs lag behind both Switzerland and India therefore America must and probably will try to let the Jewish lobby pilot it to the Middle East where it will attempt to fix the Arab world and make it as astonishingly progressive as India and Switzerland. Well, I have news: This kind of talk has never served a useful purpose because the Arabs cannot be motivated to welcome the Americans with open arms following a fantasy talk of this kind.
And guess who or what is missing in this artificial, meaningless and useless talk. Two things are missing. The first is the fundamental understanding of a simple truth based on mathematics. It is this: If A equals C; and if B equals C, therefore A equals B. The second missing thing is the mention of China. And this is because the way that the Jewish propaganda machine (led by Tom Friedman of the New York Times) originally presented the argument was to compare the Arab world with China and India among others, not just India. Apparently, incapable of seeing the irony in the fact that he has been leading the cries of lamentation about a China that is powering ahead of America, Friedman missed the logical consequence of him asserting that the Arab progress was inferior to that of China while at the same time lamenting that the American progress was inferior to that of China. The logically challenged columnist could not see that in doing this, he was equating the progress of America with that of the Arabs. He still does not know it but he made himself look like the self appointed emperor who wore a crown and no clothes. But do not despair, my friend, because the image of the naked emperor is one that Mr. Obama has avoided when he omitted to mention China in the speech. In fact, it looks like he deliberately avoided mentioning that country because he knows that he too has lamented America's lag behind China on a number of occasions. But the thing is that he is logical enough to avoid falling into the trap where Friedman has fallen. Next time, however, he should completely avoid getting involved in this kind of talk because it leads nowhere and serves only to strip the imperial clothes off its participants.
We came to these conclusions by looking at the different parts of the President's speech and analyzing them. We now look at the context in which the Arabs are having their internal debates where we find a goldmine of ideas. It is that some Arab countries have oil and some don't. Those that have it worry about the day when the resource that is giving them a high standard of living will be depleted. To prepare for this day, they use the wealth generated by the sale of oil to industrialize and thus have something to fall back on when the oil will be gone. To measure the progress they make in this regard, they frequently compare their non-oil exports with the totality of their exports. They do this separately for each country that depends on oil then add up the numbers and generate one set of figures to represent the entire Arab world as if it were a single economic region modeled after the European Union, a group that the Arabs hope to emulate someday. As of now, however, the Arabs have a population of about 330 million people which is less than the 400 million mentioned in the President's speech. For a reason that remains a mystery to me, it looks like someone has included the population of non-Arab Iran in that figure.
What is refreshing about the internal Arab debate with regard to the matter of making a choice in economics and governance is that the debate touches solely on economics and governance and remains devoid of politics and political gamesmanship. What I find most interesting about it is the part where the merits and demerits are laid out with regard to the growth that is generated through export as opposed to the growth that is generated by internal consumption. I have had views on this matter for a long time and had the opportunity to add to them by being exposed to the internal debate of the Arabs. I shall present both sides of the argument the best way that I can while making the situation in Egypt the backdrop of my presentation.
My view on the relationship that exists between industry and political governance started to take shape when I began to study the Industrial Revolution. I concentrated on Europe where that Revolution began and where the social revolutions were later triggered. I saw that the aim of the social revolutions was to bring political governance in line with the industrial progress that was being made and was accelerating. I also saw the two revolutions as having a symbiotic existence, each feeding the other and feeding on it in a relationship that was sometimes violent and sometimes quiet but one that helped both revolutions to grow organically over a long period of time. The end result has been that a system of quasi egalitarian justice was born to replace the system of serfdom that had been in existence for centuries. We now call what we see in Europe the liberal democracies of the West which -- for the purpose of this discussion – we can divorce from the period when colonialism played a role in shaping them.
Progress in those countries generally came about more or less evenly because it happened over a period of time that was long enough to allow for corrective measures to be introduced when distortions began to show up as they inevitably do where there is growth and there is change. When at times, the distortions became so exaggerated that something harsher needed to be done, it was done voluntarily by those who held the power and relinquished some of it; or the change was brought about by violent means when those who were voiceless staged a revolt and wrested the power. And this sort of thing happened on and off until a new system of governance was finally born. The system kept shaping and reshaping itself through decades of evolution which is a period I call: “The politico-industrial growth of liberal democracies.” To my surprise, I discovered that it was the primitive state of transportation at that time which gave the economic system the semblance of evenness that characterizes the liberal democracies of today. It happened because the early barons of industry developed a dependence on the local markets where they sold their products and thus helped generate the growth that their factories needed. With the production and the consumption done locally, what the workers wanted more than anything else was to share in the ownership of the means of production. They organized themselves and fought to secure gains in this area, and they won a few battles. The consequence has been that the masses came to share in the wealth that they produce but they also learned that when they organize they develop the means to participate in the governance of the country.
The way things stand now is that transportation is no longer a problem that is big enough to intimidate the industrialists of today. They produce in one place on the globe and sell in another place; they even produce parts and components in several places at the same time to assemble them in a different place altogether and sell the finished product in yet another place. And the reason why today's industrialists tend to do this is that they seek to produce in places where the cost of production is cheap and seek to sell in the places where the purchasing power is high. This means that the workers and the entire population can be kept poor in the places where the products are made and yet these same people are asked to enter into a bidding war to buy what they produce against people who live far away and have several times the purchasing power that they do. Unable to lead a dignified life under these conditions, the people in the poorer places learn to agitate -- not because they seek to participate in the ownership of the means of production as did their counterparts in Europe of old -- but to be paid higher wages and salaries. Besides, the capital markets of today are highly developed and those who wish to own the means of production can do so provided they have the money to buy stocks. And when you add to this the idea that people invest some of their earnings in securities to prepare for retirement, you can see why being paid more money becomes an important issue in modern times.
Well then, things look like they will work out nicely, do they not? Maybe. But let's look briefly at a piece of history after which you may judge for yourself. Several decades ago most countries in the world decided to open themselves to trade and investment, a move that came to be known as Globalization. It did not take long for the people of the world to theorize that the effect of this move was the coming together of the rich in the developed world and the newly enriched in the developing world. These people came together in a self serving alliance through a sinister sort of unspoken conspiracy. The coming together was seen as a way to exploit the poor in the poorer countries by making them work at subsistence levels; and it was seen as a way to fleece the middle class in the richer countries by sending them to the unemployment lines while sending their jobs abroad. The rich were seen as telling the first that they should live poorly now to live better tomorrow; and telling the second that whether or not they have a job, they can borrow against their home and live the good life by consuming the cheap products they import for them from abroad. When this situation became well understood, it caused the people of the world to riot every time they had the opportunity to do so. And the opportunities came about each time that a meeting of the World Bank or the IMF were held anywhere on the planet because the people saw these institutions along with the G-7, G-8 and G-20 as being complicit in the conspiracy to exploit and to fleece them for the benefit of the very rich.
Put in a nutshell, the inescapable conclusion is that globalization has led to an increase in exports which led to the widening of the gap between rich and poor. Some individuals in some countries became rich at the expense of others and bought their way into the corridors of power. The result has been that no improvement was allowed to take hold with regard to the system of governance. And while at first blush it looks like South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong -- who made undeniable and visible progress -- have avoided being swept by that trend, it is becoming increasingly clear that their progress came about because Britain and the United States propped them up like spoiled children to show their communist neighbors that capitalism was better than the system they followed. The gambit worked because shortly thereafter mainland China opened its own economy and began to benefit hugely when the industrial barons of Taiwan and Hong Kong moved to the mainland taking with them the know-how that the Britons and the Americans had brought to their provinces. Other than that, however, everyone else in South Asia and Latin America cursed the day they took the advice of the IMF and the World Bank and ran their economies accordingly because it was the advice that put them in debt and messed up their economies.
Drowning in a debt that cut them off from the rest of the world, those countries started to develop their local markets in order to realize the growth that the economy desperately needed. Contrary to what the IMF and the World Bank were preaching, the dependence on the local markets raised the standard of living for everyone because the workers were paid enough to buy the products they were making. Moreover, with a rising standard of living and more opportunities opening to them, the people were inclined to seek advancement by acquiring better training and more education. They also became more active in the political life of the country, a move that helped to put down roots for a new kind of democracy to flourish. Brazil is in the forefront of this movement.
In Egypt today a group of people is advocating reliance on the local market to grow the economy organically the way that Europe did in the early stages of its industrialization. Another group says that the country should take advantage of the many free trade agreements the previous regime has signed with the rest of the world to turn Egypt into the factory of the Middle East, Africa and Europe and boost export. These people want to see the Egyptian economy grow the way that the Chinese economy did.
You judge for yourself who is right and who is wrong then wait for the future to render its verdict.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Stop Playing Politics With The Middle East
On May 17, 2011 the Wall Street Journal published an editorial under the title: “The Third Intifada” and the subtitle: “Back to the future in the Middle East.” If you know anything about the recent history of the Middle East, the thought that will come to you when you read the first sentence of the editorial is that whoever wrote this thing must have been young and inexperienced. Here is the sentence: “Sunday's coordinated attacks on the Israeli border mark a dangerous turn back toward Mideast conflict.” The writer(s) of this piece must be young because he, she or they obviously do not remember that there was a time when the churches in Canada and the United States had tried to organize the Palestinian people to come by the millions to the Israeli border and stage the Palestinian version of the Exodus to see if the Israelis would mow them with machine guns as someone had suggested the Israelis were savage enough to do.
Also, that writer or writers of the editorial must have been inexperienced because they give someone like me the opportunity to point to the word “attacks” and show how laughable has become the editorial board of a once respected publication. You see, my dear reader, all cogs in the Jewish propaganda machine never tired from using the false image of the Arabs attacking Israel with lethal conventional weapons if not weapons of mass destruction. And these people went on to say that the Israelis have always managed to fend off the Arabs perhaps by blowing kisses at them or something without suffering a single casualty. Most publics in the West reserved judgment, however, because they did not have enough information about the matter given that the technology was not there to give it the coverage it now receives. But the sights and sounds are transmitted instantly now, including a picture accompanying the editorial. And what they show is a number of unarmed Palestinians “attacking” Israel simply with their presence. Furthermore, the editorial itself describes the worst of these confrontational incidents this way: “The usual suspects in the West are calling this a Palestinian version of the Arab Spring, but it looks more like the familiar violence of rock-throwing at Israeli conscripts.”
Get this, my friend? What the editors describe as these Israeli conscripts are actually soldiers of an occupation that has lasted several generations. International law as well as tradition and precedents give the Palestinians the right to resist the presence of foreign soldiers on their soil by any means they determine will help end the occupation. But all that the Palestinians did was to present themselves bare hands or carrying a sign that says end the occupation or daring to throw a rock. And the little snorts that pass for editorial writers at the Wall Street Journal wail the refrain we used to hear in the old days: “They throw rocks at our soooldiers … oh pity me, pity me.”
But guess what the result of the confrontation between the unarmed Palestinians and the gun totting Israeli soldiers has been. Well, the editorial said it all: “More than a dozen people were killed.” And this is what someone had long ago predicted will be the result if the Palestinians staged their version of the Exodus. And this was the reason why the churches in Canada and the United States did not go through with the plan. It took years to prove the point but the Israelis have finally demonstrated that they are every bit the savages that someone said they were. You would now think that as a result of repeated criminal acts committed by the Israelis against humanity, a prosecutor at the International Criminal Court would move to file charges and try to get someone prosecuted. But no, this does not happen because of reasons that shall be discussed in a minute.
In any case, certain that they have written a piece so solid that no one will be able to knock it, the editorial writers of the Journal proceed with confidence. To see how they do this, we go back to the first paragraph and look at the rest of it: “Such a coda to the Arab Spring would be cheered only by Iran, Arab dictators and Islamists. And as perennial pawns in games played by stronger Muslim players, the Palestinians will suffer the worst consequences.” Why are these two sentences laughable? To answer this question I must digress for a moment. It is that “pattern recognition” is a measure of intelligence. For example, a kitten that enjoys watching television and tells you to turn it on by touching the screen with its paw will do the same thing if you take it to another house where the television set looks different. To your surprise, you will find that the kitten has recognized the pattern from a few clues and has deduced that this too is a television set that will entertain it when turned on. And this ability of the kitten is more than can be said about the editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal who were trained long enough to refrain from describing what goes on inside the heads and the hearts of the Arabs or the Muslims because the attempt makes them look like they have an IQ inferior to that of a kitten.
But if they are inferior in this department, they are superior in another department where their gall and their hubris surpass anything you have seen before. It is that they want you to believe they know what the consequences will be of that which they know nothing about. The reality is that since the Balfour Declaration more than a century ago to this day when the United States is threatening to stand in the way of the Palestinians gaining recognition at the United Nations, the game of those who call themselves democrats has been to do to the rear end of Jewish voters what a kitten does to a nipple of its mother. And the characters at the Wall Street Journal show not the slightest shame accusing what they call the stronger Muslim players of using the Palestinians as pawns in games they don't identify or give an example of because the Arabs and the Muslims play no such games. For them to write such falsehoods is to prove that the editorial was written by members of the Jewish propaganda machine because they have the gall and the hubris to do so or it was written by the non-Jewish writers who crave digested kosher foods. And this too is the reason why the matter is not in the hands of the International Criminal Court.
The editorial goes on to repeat a few more clichés and stereotypes then ends this way: “President Obama plans to deliver a major speech on the Middle East Thursday, and he could help by saying candidly that this latest Arab turn is self-defeating. At a moment of great hope for a changed Arab world, nothing would be as destructive as a fourth Mideast war.”
Well, that speech is only a few hours away. Unlike his Secretary of State who has clearly opted to continue playing politics with this matter, the hope is that the President will prove to be smarter than that and call for a change in Israeli politics if not the complete depoliticization of this matter both in Israel and in America. Enough is enough.
Also, that writer or writers of the editorial must have been inexperienced because they give someone like me the opportunity to point to the word “attacks” and show how laughable has become the editorial board of a once respected publication. You see, my dear reader, all cogs in the Jewish propaganda machine never tired from using the false image of the Arabs attacking Israel with lethal conventional weapons if not weapons of mass destruction. And these people went on to say that the Israelis have always managed to fend off the Arabs perhaps by blowing kisses at them or something without suffering a single casualty. Most publics in the West reserved judgment, however, because they did not have enough information about the matter given that the technology was not there to give it the coverage it now receives. But the sights and sounds are transmitted instantly now, including a picture accompanying the editorial. And what they show is a number of unarmed Palestinians “attacking” Israel simply with their presence. Furthermore, the editorial itself describes the worst of these confrontational incidents this way: “The usual suspects in the West are calling this a Palestinian version of the Arab Spring, but it looks more like the familiar violence of rock-throwing at Israeli conscripts.”
Get this, my friend? What the editors describe as these Israeli conscripts are actually soldiers of an occupation that has lasted several generations. International law as well as tradition and precedents give the Palestinians the right to resist the presence of foreign soldiers on their soil by any means they determine will help end the occupation. But all that the Palestinians did was to present themselves bare hands or carrying a sign that says end the occupation or daring to throw a rock. And the little snorts that pass for editorial writers at the Wall Street Journal wail the refrain we used to hear in the old days: “They throw rocks at our soooldiers … oh pity me, pity me.”
But guess what the result of the confrontation between the unarmed Palestinians and the gun totting Israeli soldiers has been. Well, the editorial said it all: “More than a dozen people were killed.” And this is what someone had long ago predicted will be the result if the Palestinians staged their version of the Exodus. And this was the reason why the churches in Canada and the United States did not go through with the plan. It took years to prove the point but the Israelis have finally demonstrated that they are every bit the savages that someone said they were. You would now think that as a result of repeated criminal acts committed by the Israelis against humanity, a prosecutor at the International Criminal Court would move to file charges and try to get someone prosecuted. But no, this does not happen because of reasons that shall be discussed in a minute.
In any case, certain that they have written a piece so solid that no one will be able to knock it, the editorial writers of the Journal proceed with confidence. To see how they do this, we go back to the first paragraph and look at the rest of it: “Such a coda to the Arab Spring would be cheered only by Iran, Arab dictators and Islamists. And as perennial pawns in games played by stronger Muslim players, the Palestinians will suffer the worst consequences.” Why are these two sentences laughable? To answer this question I must digress for a moment. It is that “pattern recognition” is a measure of intelligence. For example, a kitten that enjoys watching television and tells you to turn it on by touching the screen with its paw will do the same thing if you take it to another house where the television set looks different. To your surprise, you will find that the kitten has recognized the pattern from a few clues and has deduced that this too is a television set that will entertain it when turned on. And this ability of the kitten is more than can be said about the editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal who were trained long enough to refrain from describing what goes on inside the heads and the hearts of the Arabs or the Muslims because the attempt makes them look like they have an IQ inferior to that of a kitten.
But if they are inferior in this department, they are superior in another department where their gall and their hubris surpass anything you have seen before. It is that they want you to believe they know what the consequences will be of that which they know nothing about. The reality is that since the Balfour Declaration more than a century ago to this day when the United States is threatening to stand in the way of the Palestinians gaining recognition at the United Nations, the game of those who call themselves democrats has been to do to the rear end of Jewish voters what a kitten does to a nipple of its mother. And the characters at the Wall Street Journal show not the slightest shame accusing what they call the stronger Muslim players of using the Palestinians as pawns in games they don't identify or give an example of because the Arabs and the Muslims play no such games. For them to write such falsehoods is to prove that the editorial was written by members of the Jewish propaganda machine because they have the gall and the hubris to do so or it was written by the non-Jewish writers who crave digested kosher foods. And this too is the reason why the matter is not in the hands of the International Criminal Court.
The editorial goes on to repeat a few more clichés and stereotypes then ends this way: “President Obama plans to deliver a major speech on the Middle East Thursday, and he could help by saying candidly that this latest Arab turn is self-defeating. At a moment of great hope for a changed Arab world, nothing would be as destructive as a fourth Mideast war.”
Well, that speech is only a few hours away. Unlike his Secretary of State who has clearly opted to continue playing politics with this matter, the hope is that the President will prove to be smarter than that and call for a change in Israeli politics if not the complete depoliticization of this matter both in Israel and in America. Enough is enough.
Monday, May 16, 2011
A Fraudulent Definition Of Fraud
It has been reported that President Obama will be giving a speech on the Middle East in the coming few days. If he plans to speak to the Arabs, there is one mistake among many that previous presidents have repeatedly made which he must avoid if he wants to gain credibility and maintain it with the Arab masses. Do not approach the Arabs with a notion already formed in your mind that they were put on this Earth to be made use of to serve the interests of Israel or the interests of America or both. If one iota of this notion remains in you, get rid of it because the Arabs will sense it no matter how well you may think you have camouflaged it. There is one article that Mr. Obama can read to prepare himself for the occasion and know what to avoid. It expresses in extreme form the mistake that presidents have made in more subtle ways.
On May 15, 2011 Ben Stein published a piece on the website CBS News.com under the title: “Arab Spring” is a fraud. When you read the piece you realize that it is a highly peculiar way to define the word fraud, and you wonder if this is only the expression of Stein's personal view or if it is the expression of a point of view that is more widely shared among people and organizations in whose name he is speaking. Stein begins the piece by promising to tell the truth about what has come to be called the “Arab Spring” and about the Middle East in general.
However, as he moves into the elaboration of his ideas, he backs off a little from the unequivocal and assertive stance he had taken at the start. In fact, he says that as a force for democracy, human rights and peace, the Arab Spring seems to him to be a fraud. Note the use of the qualifying term “seems” because he signals by it that he is prepared to accept the proposition he may be seeing the wrong thing or that he may be interpreting what he sees the wrong way.
He goes further with the elaboration by saying this: “The dictator and his entourage who were kicked out in Egypt were pro-West, a bit restrained on Israel, open to free enterprise, and resistant to Iranian-sponsored terror.” This is how he believes the situation was before the onset of the Arab Spring. But how is it now in his view? This is how he sees the situation now: “Egypt is now rapidly becoming anti-Israel, pro-Iran, pro the Iranian-sponsored terrorist group Hamas, and very far from being pro-human rights. They are arresting businessmen right and left in Egypt just for the crime of being successful. They have arrested Mubarak's sons, and have said they plan to try Mubarak.”
With regard to his description of the way that Egypt was before the revolt, I can only ask this question: Where was Stein when he and people like him were hammering at Egypt -- not once in a while -- but all day long and all night long in the print and the audio-visual media every time they thought they had an excuse to do so? In fact, the hammering was so pervasive and so relentless, it would have taken dozens of people like me writing dozens of websites like this to respond and to correct all the lies and all the distortions that were being spread, repeated and echoed about Egypt.
As to his description of the way that Egypt is now, he laments that the country is softening the negative stance it was adopting with regard to countries and organizations that happen to be at odds with Israel. What this says about Stein is that he considers himself to be allied with Israel and that he believes in the dictum: “If you're not with us, you're against us.” What is puzzling is his addition of the phrase: “...and very far from being pro-human rights.” This prompts me to ask if he means to say that to be with Israel is to be for human rights, while not to be with Israel means to be anti-human rights. If this is what he believes, he has a lot to learn.
And speaking of learning, there is one important thing he needs to learn. It is that an ignorant outburst such as saying they arrest businessmen for the crime of being successful makes him look like a total ignoramus that loves to wallow in the pool of his ignorance. Although I have been saying for years that corruption was not a big deal in Egypt when you compare it to other places, it does not mean that people never made a few small gains by illegitimate means. In this regard people have been arrested in Egypt, including Mubarak and his sons, and they are being investigated. The allegations brought against them in complaints filed locally are no where near the sick fantasies that were splashed in ignorant British publications such as the one that claimed Mubarak had stashed away 70 billion dollars in foreign banks. If tried, Mubarak and his family may yet be cleared of even the minor charges that were filed against them locally.
Stein goes on to blabber a few more things in his piece about a number of Arab countries to finally conclude that the Arab Spring has so far been a boon to Iran which he says has become the new superpower of the region. And he voices his fear that Iran will continue to make gains which will turn this whole episode into an extremely harsh Mideast winter.
What an article like this says is that Stein and people like him see the world in black and white with no shades of gray in between. They see the world as being made of good and evil and that a war is raging between the two. They go on to explain that everyone on this planet stands either with Israel and everything that is good or they stand away from Israel and everything that is evil. They say that Egypt and the other Arab countries are currently distancing themselves from Israel as they drift closer to the camp of evil. Because of this, they are pessimistic about the future.
This is what they say now which is a way to present history that is the reverse of how they were presenting it a short while ago when they were hammering at the Arab countries, especially Egypt. So then how do we interpret or explain this attitude? There is only one word to explain it all; the word is fraud. These people were a fraud in the past and they are a fraud now. To explain the inconsistencies in their posture before and after the Arab Spring, they call the movement associated with it a fraud. In doing this, they give the word fraud a new definition that is wholly fraudulent.
For a moment at the start of his elaboration, Stein was seen backing off from the assertive and unequivocal stance he had taken earlier, and he indicated his preparedness to being corrected. Let him now come out and say that he stands corrected and that he sees things differently.
As for Mr. Obama's speech, talk to the Arabs as friends if you want to be friends with them and do not predicate the friendship on anything else. Absolutely none. Let this be a quest for a pure, clean, simple and innocent friendship. Nothing more and nothing less because this is how you will open the door for the friendship to evolve, bloom and flourish in a way that will be beneficial for the Arabs, for America and for the world.
On May 15, 2011 Ben Stein published a piece on the website CBS News.com under the title: “Arab Spring” is a fraud. When you read the piece you realize that it is a highly peculiar way to define the word fraud, and you wonder if this is only the expression of Stein's personal view or if it is the expression of a point of view that is more widely shared among people and organizations in whose name he is speaking. Stein begins the piece by promising to tell the truth about what has come to be called the “Arab Spring” and about the Middle East in general.
However, as he moves into the elaboration of his ideas, he backs off a little from the unequivocal and assertive stance he had taken at the start. In fact, he says that as a force for democracy, human rights and peace, the Arab Spring seems to him to be a fraud. Note the use of the qualifying term “seems” because he signals by it that he is prepared to accept the proposition he may be seeing the wrong thing or that he may be interpreting what he sees the wrong way.
He goes further with the elaboration by saying this: “The dictator and his entourage who were kicked out in Egypt were pro-West, a bit restrained on Israel, open to free enterprise, and resistant to Iranian-sponsored terror.” This is how he believes the situation was before the onset of the Arab Spring. But how is it now in his view? This is how he sees the situation now: “Egypt is now rapidly becoming anti-Israel, pro-Iran, pro the Iranian-sponsored terrorist group Hamas, and very far from being pro-human rights. They are arresting businessmen right and left in Egypt just for the crime of being successful. They have arrested Mubarak's sons, and have said they plan to try Mubarak.”
With regard to his description of the way that Egypt was before the revolt, I can only ask this question: Where was Stein when he and people like him were hammering at Egypt -- not once in a while -- but all day long and all night long in the print and the audio-visual media every time they thought they had an excuse to do so? In fact, the hammering was so pervasive and so relentless, it would have taken dozens of people like me writing dozens of websites like this to respond and to correct all the lies and all the distortions that were being spread, repeated and echoed about Egypt.
As to his description of the way that Egypt is now, he laments that the country is softening the negative stance it was adopting with regard to countries and organizations that happen to be at odds with Israel. What this says about Stein is that he considers himself to be allied with Israel and that he believes in the dictum: “If you're not with us, you're against us.” What is puzzling is his addition of the phrase: “...and very far from being pro-human rights.” This prompts me to ask if he means to say that to be with Israel is to be for human rights, while not to be with Israel means to be anti-human rights. If this is what he believes, he has a lot to learn.
And speaking of learning, there is one important thing he needs to learn. It is that an ignorant outburst such as saying they arrest businessmen for the crime of being successful makes him look like a total ignoramus that loves to wallow in the pool of his ignorance. Although I have been saying for years that corruption was not a big deal in Egypt when you compare it to other places, it does not mean that people never made a few small gains by illegitimate means. In this regard people have been arrested in Egypt, including Mubarak and his sons, and they are being investigated. The allegations brought against them in complaints filed locally are no where near the sick fantasies that were splashed in ignorant British publications such as the one that claimed Mubarak had stashed away 70 billion dollars in foreign banks. If tried, Mubarak and his family may yet be cleared of even the minor charges that were filed against them locally.
Stein goes on to blabber a few more things in his piece about a number of Arab countries to finally conclude that the Arab Spring has so far been a boon to Iran which he says has become the new superpower of the region. And he voices his fear that Iran will continue to make gains which will turn this whole episode into an extremely harsh Mideast winter.
What an article like this says is that Stein and people like him see the world in black and white with no shades of gray in between. They see the world as being made of good and evil and that a war is raging between the two. They go on to explain that everyone on this planet stands either with Israel and everything that is good or they stand away from Israel and everything that is evil. They say that Egypt and the other Arab countries are currently distancing themselves from Israel as they drift closer to the camp of evil. Because of this, they are pessimistic about the future.
This is what they say now which is a way to present history that is the reverse of how they were presenting it a short while ago when they were hammering at the Arab countries, especially Egypt. So then how do we interpret or explain this attitude? There is only one word to explain it all; the word is fraud. These people were a fraud in the past and they are a fraud now. To explain the inconsistencies in their posture before and after the Arab Spring, they call the movement associated with it a fraud. In doing this, they give the word fraud a new definition that is wholly fraudulent.
For a moment at the start of his elaboration, Stein was seen backing off from the assertive and unequivocal stance he had taken earlier, and he indicated his preparedness to being corrected. Let him now come out and say that he stands corrected and that he sees things differently.
As for Mr. Obama's speech, talk to the Arabs as friends if you want to be friends with them and do not predicate the friendship on anything else. Absolutely none. Let this be a quest for a pure, clean, simple and innocent friendship. Nothing more and nothing less because this is how you will open the door for the friendship to evolve, bloom and flourish in a way that will be beneficial for the Arabs, for America and for the world.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Seeing The Forest For The Trees
It is generally accepted that the way we ask a question will spark a debate that is different from the debate that would be sparked if we asked the same question a little differently. For example, we may ask the general question: Does the end justify the means? Or we may ask the specific question: Is this the best way to do this thing? In the first instance the question will lead to a debate that would be familiar to the general public. In the second instance a different debate will follow whose nature will depend on the context in which the question was asked. What the two approaches will have in common, however, is that if either debate is allowed to run its full course, it will tend to cover both the generalities and the specifics of the topic that was taken up at the start. And what this means is that whichever way we may ask the question, all free and full debates will in the end come to look the same.
Let us take an example of the first case. Ask if the end justifies the means and someone will be inclined to answer yes, it is morally acceptable to proceed in this manner or he will be inclined to answer no, it is not morally acceptable to proceed in this manner. Whatever the case, someone else will take the opposite point of view and before you know it, you will all be debating points that seek to resolve anyone of many derivative questions. For example, you may find yourselves attempting to resolve this question: Does the end of war which is victory justify the means we employ to score that victory? Or you may attempt to resolve this question: does the end of business which is profit justify the means we employ to make that profit? And the list goes on.
As we can see, the general nature of the question that was asked at the start has led to a debate on specific matters pertaining to the waging of war or the making of profit. And this happened because international relations and the conduct of business are the foremost preoccupations on the minds of the general public at this time in this culture. If, however, the context is changed -- which can happen when you move from culture to culture or can happen with the passage of time -- you will find that the specific points taken up by the debate will reflect the preoccupations of the new culture or the new times. And this will happen no matter what the nature of the general question will have been at the start. The certainty is that both the generalities and the specifics of the topic will be covered during the ensuing debate if the debate is allowed to run its full course.
Let us now take an example of the second case where the question at the start is a specific one. A group of people in a farming community may ask: Will the purchase of a tractor help us do better than we do now? And the debate that follows will most likely sound like a business discussion because it will inevitably take up the question of making a profit. But the debate will eventually change to revolve around a more general point -- the comparison between mechanized and traditional farming, a principal preoccupation of the people who live in farm communities. In short, the debate will end up tackling the familiar question: Does the end which is the size of the harvest justify the means which is the use of a tractor? And here too, the certainty is that both the generalities and the specifics of the topic will be covered during the ensuing debate if the debate is allowed to run its full course.
The analogy we may draw to represent that situation is the distinction we make between the forest and the trees. In fact, there is already a saying about seeing the forest for the trees. And this saying exists because there are in every discussion the singular points which may be represented by the trees, and there is the general view of the subject matter which may be represented by the forest. And the challenge in every debate is to get the opposite debaters to see beyond their cherished idea and consider the idea of someone else as being valid because it is of the same forest even if it is a different tree. The problem, however, is that people who have a vested interest in the outcome of the debate often refuse to see that their cherished idea is but a single tree in a forest where the other side also has a tree. At best, they might think of their tree as representing the entire forest while giving no consideration to what the tree of the other fellow may represent; at worst, they will paint in their own head a negative picture of the other tree.
Mediators and moderators have the task of bridging the gap between negotiating parties who often begin the discussion with a point of view that is so narrow, they can only see the width of their own tree trunk. As a first step, a mediator or moderator will make the parties see that their tree is not the entire forest. This done, the point of view of each party is gradually pried to a larger width to make the people see the size of the forest and appreciate the variety of trees it may contain. The ultimate success comes when the parties accept a compromise that allows room for the other trees to exist and to flourish. It takes a special set of skills to bring opposite parties to accept a compromise and this is why good mediators and good moderators are appreciated.
And so we let the mediators and the moderators do their work and turn our attention to a subject matter that has plagued mankind since the beginning of time. We then look at the people who make it near impossible for some debates to run their full course. The subject matter is the ideology of people who have popped up in all the places throughout history and have claimed to be above everyone else thus entitled to special privileges. Such people believe that if the privileges they seek are not bestowed on them voluntarily by everyone else, the privileges should be acquired by force and held on to by means which may not be savory but would be justified under the dictum that the end justifies the means. The ideology adhered to by these people is called supremacy and it comes in many forms because it is based on one of several attributes such as ethnic origin, religious belief, color of skin or even the ideology that is embraced by someone.
We do not have to go too far to understand how the phenomenon of supremacy came into existence. Like a pervasive forest, it is all around us in the natural world where the alpha male or alpha female in many a species are considered to be above the others. As such, they are entitled to occupy the highest position in the pecking order where they enjoy the privileges that go with the position. Also, human children grow up accepting the supremacy of the adult crowd until they feel strong enough to challenge the existing setup and claim a higher ranking for themselves in the order of things. As if to duplicate this pattern, leaders have arisen among groups of people as small as a tribe and as large as a country to rule over the rest of the population. Some of these leaders started their career ruthlessly and remained ruthless to the end but most have preferred to maintain the loyalty of their subjects by using the argument that they belong to a special class of beings called gods. And so they anointed themselves as kings, pharaohs, sultans and what have you.
Then came a group of landless nomadic people calling themselves Jews who went to Egypt, the superpower of its time, to seek food. Once there, they were blown away by the magnificence, the power and the opulence of the land of the pharaohs who were themselves treated as gods by their people. And the Jews who had gone looking for something to eat became so greedy they desired to acquire for themselves what they saw the pharaohs were enjoying. But they reckoned that to have any of that, they must have a land of their own. And to have a land, they must gather around them a large number of converts who will fight alongside them to steal the land from someone else. And the Jews set out to implement such a plan by calling themselves the children of a God who promised them a land and promised to adopt as his children all the converts to the cause. And the converts were also promised that they will belong to a race that occupies the highest ranking in the pecking order among the peoples of the Earth. And they were told this will make each of them a pharaoh in his own right able to rule over humanity.
The scheme worked well and the Jews together with the new converts stole Palestine, the land of milk and honey as it was called. But then came the Romans who kicked the Jews out of Palestine and thus proved that those who were calling themselves the children of God were nothing but fakes and quacks. Beaten and thrown out of the land they stole from the Palestinians, the Jews scattered around the world. They remained quiet for two centuries until a group of them got the idea that they can revive the old ideology and seek once again to become pharaohs over humanity. They appointed themselves leaders over the Jews and have plotted ever since to do just that, undeterred by the repeated defeats they have suffered since that time.
What can be said about the methods used by the self appointed leaders of the Jews as they implement their plan is that the methods are honed to confuse the people they seek to exploit. The first thing they do is inculcate the population with the notion that it suffers from a defect called anti-Semitism which makes it imperative that everyone refrain from criticizing the Jews no matter what the latter do because criticism may lead to their extermination; something that was attempted before. With this trick, the leaders manage to eliminate every opposition that may arise before it arises, and without someone to correct them, they make it near impossible for some debates to run their full course. This done, they set out to implement the next trick. And to do this, they grab something in the news that may be of little significance and spin it so hard as to blur the specific with the general thus create a new blended concoction which they use as weapon to fight for the cause.
To see the full extent of this approach and to grasp its many levels of complexity, we need to go back in history and recall something. The country of Vietnam which today is unified, at peace and rushing headlong to modernize is still a very backward place. Now imagine what the communist North Vietnam alone was like forty or fifty years ago. Now compare this image with the might of an America that was still basking in the glory of its triumphs in Europe and in the Pacific. Now put yourself in the shoes of the North Vietnamese leaders as they fought the Americans who were in the South of their country trying to prevent its reunification. What do you do when, as a nation, you are this weak and you are taking on America which is that powerful?
If you said you would try to humiliate the mighty America, you said the right thing. And since the mighty is a forest made of trees, you capture some trees; you humiliate them and in so doing humiliate the American forest. And so the North Vietnamese captured the American soldiers who were fighting in the South and captured the American pilots they brought down as the latter were bombing the North. Doing this, the communists acquired a few American prisoners but they were more than prisoners because they were also trophies. Before the North Vietnamese threw the prisoners in jail, they put them in a cage on a truck like the cages they were using to transport wild animals. And they paraded the Americans through the streets of their cities in the animal cages to show their own people and to tell the world that America is a forest of wild animals and that they had the trees to prove it. The individual Americans were humiliated and so was America.
This method is a weapon used by the weak when they know they are weak, and it is one that Israel has used with dubious results. In fact, the Israelis have failed to score points in the eyes of the Arabs but have succeeded at scoring points in America. Here is what happened. Using the pretext that young Palestinians may be carrying weapons, the Israelis forced the little ones to strip naked and walk with their hands over their heads in full view of television cameras that had come from the four corners of the world. Having so humiliated the Palestinian children, the Jewish propaganda machine got into gear and worked to confuse the image of those kids with the image of the entire Arab population. The Arabs who could see the difference between the trees that the children symbolized and the forest that the Arab countries symbolized, responded by expressing anger at the savagery they had witnessed but did not feel humiliated by the display of depraved Jewish behavior. In the eyes of the Arabs, the Jews had humiliated themselves more than anything else which is probably the worst that has happened to them since the days when the Nazis used to humiliate them for fun.
On the other hand, many Americans -- especially those who were employed on the civilian side of the military when it was headed by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz -- got the message that it was acceptable to try and humiliate the Arabs no matter who they are or where they happen to be. This sort of thrust by the Jewish propaganda machine coupled with the constant drumming of the notion that Saddam Hussein must be humiliated led to the disastrous war in Iraq and the depraved behavior of the American military at Abu Ghraib. The result has been that the few sick American trees who took orders from the Jewish lobby became the symbol that has represented the American forest ever since. And that symbol remains so badly soiled, it may never get cleaned up.
Finally, it can be said that the Jewish propaganda machine has done to America's good name around the world what the Japanese Imperial Navy has failed to do to the US Navy at Pearl Harbor: completely wipe it out. And the people in America who have listened for decades to Jewish writers like Tom Friedman of the New York Times tell them about Arab pathologies have seen nothing about the Arabs to suggest a disease. But looking at the way that their country has been ruined at the level of its economy, its military and its good name, many Americans are beginning to wonder if the pathology plaguing their country and plaguing the world is not Judaism itself. The Nazis said that Judaism was a disease; Friedman says better use the word pathology instead.
Let us take an example of the first case. Ask if the end justifies the means and someone will be inclined to answer yes, it is morally acceptable to proceed in this manner or he will be inclined to answer no, it is not morally acceptable to proceed in this manner. Whatever the case, someone else will take the opposite point of view and before you know it, you will all be debating points that seek to resolve anyone of many derivative questions. For example, you may find yourselves attempting to resolve this question: Does the end of war which is victory justify the means we employ to score that victory? Or you may attempt to resolve this question: does the end of business which is profit justify the means we employ to make that profit? And the list goes on.
As we can see, the general nature of the question that was asked at the start has led to a debate on specific matters pertaining to the waging of war or the making of profit. And this happened because international relations and the conduct of business are the foremost preoccupations on the minds of the general public at this time in this culture. If, however, the context is changed -- which can happen when you move from culture to culture or can happen with the passage of time -- you will find that the specific points taken up by the debate will reflect the preoccupations of the new culture or the new times. And this will happen no matter what the nature of the general question will have been at the start. The certainty is that both the generalities and the specifics of the topic will be covered during the ensuing debate if the debate is allowed to run its full course.
Let us now take an example of the second case where the question at the start is a specific one. A group of people in a farming community may ask: Will the purchase of a tractor help us do better than we do now? And the debate that follows will most likely sound like a business discussion because it will inevitably take up the question of making a profit. But the debate will eventually change to revolve around a more general point -- the comparison between mechanized and traditional farming, a principal preoccupation of the people who live in farm communities. In short, the debate will end up tackling the familiar question: Does the end which is the size of the harvest justify the means which is the use of a tractor? And here too, the certainty is that both the generalities and the specifics of the topic will be covered during the ensuing debate if the debate is allowed to run its full course.
The analogy we may draw to represent that situation is the distinction we make between the forest and the trees. In fact, there is already a saying about seeing the forest for the trees. And this saying exists because there are in every discussion the singular points which may be represented by the trees, and there is the general view of the subject matter which may be represented by the forest. And the challenge in every debate is to get the opposite debaters to see beyond their cherished idea and consider the idea of someone else as being valid because it is of the same forest even if it is a different tree. The problem, however, is that people who have a vested interest in the outcome of the debate often refuse to see that their cherished idea is but a single tree in a forest where the other side also has a tree. At best, they might think of their tree as representing the entire forest while giving no consideration to what the tree of the other fellow may represent; at worst, they will paint in their own head a negative picture of the other tree.
Mediators and moderators have the task of bridging the gap between negotiating parties who often begin the discussion with a point of view that is so narrow, they can only see the width of their own tree trunk. As a first step, a mediator or moderator will make the parties see that their tree is not the entire forest. This done, the point of view of each party is gradually pried to a larger width to make the people see the size of the forest and appreciate the variety of trees it may contain. The ultimate success comes when the parties accept a compromise that allows room for the other trees to exist and to flourish. It takes a special set of skills to bring opposite parties to accept a compromise and this is why good mediators and good moderators are appreciated.
And so we let the mediators and the moderators do their work and turn our attention to a subject matter that has plagued mankind since the beginning of time. We then look at the people who make it near impossible for some debates to run their full course. The subject matter is the ideology of people who have popped up in all the places throughout history and have claimed to be above everyone else thus entitled to special privileges. Such people believe that if the privileges they seek are not bestowed on them voluntarily by everyone else, the privileges should be acquired by force and held on to by means which may not be savory but would be justified under the dictum that the end justifies the means. The ideology adhered to by these people is called supremacy and it comes in many forms because it is based on one of several attributes such as ethnic origin, religious belief, color of skin or even the ideology that is embraced by someone.
We do not have to go too far to understand how the phenomenon of supremacy came into existence. Like a pervasive forest, it is all around us in the natural world where the alpha male or alpha female in many a species are considered to be above the others. As such, they are entitled to occupy the highest position in the pecking order where they enjoy the privileges that go with the position. Also, human children grow up accepting the supremacy of the adult crowd until they feel strong enough to challenge the existing setup and claim a higher ranking for themselves in the order of things. As if to duplicate this pattern, leaders have arisen among groups of people as small as a tribe and as large as a country to rule over the rest of the population. Some of these leaders started their career ruthlessly and remained ruthless to the end but most have preferred to maintain the loyalty of their subjects by using the argument that they belong to a special class of beings called gods. And so they anointed themselves as kings, pharaohs, sultans and what have you.
Then came a group of landless nomadic people calling themselves Jews who went to Egypt, the superpower of its time, to seek food. Once there, they were blown away by the magnificence, the power and the opulence of the land of the pharaohs who were themselves treated as gods by their people. And the Jews who had gone looking for something to eat became so greedy they desired to acquire for themselves what they saw the pharaohs were enjoying. But they reckoned that to have any of that, they must have a land of their own. And to have a land, they must gather around them a large number of converts who will fight alongside them to steal the land from someone else. And the Jews set out to implement such a plan by calling themselves the children of a God who promised them a land and promised to adopt as his children all the converts to the cause. And the converts were also promised that they will belong to a race that occupies the highest ranking in the pecking order among the peoples of the Earth. And they were told this will make each of them a pharaoh in his own right able to rule over humanity.
The scheme worked well and the Jews together with the new converts stole Palestine, the land of milk and honey as it was called. But then came the Romans who kicked the Jews out of Palestine and thus proved that those who were calling themselves the children of God were nothing but fakes and quacks. Beaten and thrown out of the land they stole from the Palestinians, the Jews scattered around the world. They remained quiet for two centuries until a group of them got the idea that they can revive the old ideology and seek once again to become pharaohs over humanity. They appointed themselves leaders over the Jews and have plotted ever since to do just that, undeterred by the repeated defeats they have suffered since that time.
What can be said about the methods used by the self appointed leaders of the Jews as they implement their plan is that the methods are honed to confuse the people they seek to exploit. The first thing they do is inculcate the population with the notion that it suffers from a defect called anti-Semitism which makes it imperative that everyone refrain from criticizing the Jews no matter what the latter do because criticism may lead to their extermination; something that was attempted before. With this trick, the leaders manage to eliminate every opposition that may arise before it arises, and without someone to correct them, they make it near impossible for some debates to run their full course. This done, they set out to implement the next trick. And to do this, they grab something in the news that may be of little significance and spin it so hard as to blur the specific with the general thus create a new blended concoction which they use as weapon to fight for the cause.
To see the full extent of this approach and to grasp its many levels of complexity, we need to go back in history and recall something. The country of Vietnam which today is unified, at peace and rushing headlong to modernize is still a very backward place. Now imagine what the communist North Vietnam alone was like forty or fifty years ago. Now compare this image with the might of an America that was still basking in the glory of its triumphs in Europe and in the Pacific. Now put yourself in the shoes of the North Vietnamese leaders as they fought the Americans who were in the South of their country trying to prevent its reunification. What do you do when, as a nation, you are this weak and you are taking on America which is that powerful?
If you said you would try to humiliate the mighty America, you said the right thing. And since the mighty is a forest made of trees, you capture some trees; you humiliate them and in so doing humiliate the American forest. And so the North Vietnamese captured the American soldiers who were fighting in the South and captured the American pilots they brought down as the latter were bombing the North. Doing this, the communists acquired a few American prisoners but they were more than prisoners because they were also trophies. Before the North Vietnamese threw the prisoners in jail, they put them in a cage on a truck like the cages they were using to transport wild animals. And they paraded the Americans through the streets of their cities in the animal cages to show their own people and to tell the world that America is a forest of wild animals and that they had the trees to prove it. The individual Americans were humiliated and so was America.
This method is a weapon used by the weak when they know they are weak, and it is one that Israel has used with dubious results. In fact, the Israelis have failed to score points in the eyes of the Arabs but have succeeded at scoring points in America. Here is what happened. Using the pretext that young Palestinians may be carrying weapons, the Israelis forced the little ones to strip naked and walk with their hands over their heads in full view of television cameras that had come from the four corners of the world. Having so humiliated the Palestinian children, the Jewish propaganda machine got into gear and worked to confuse the image of those kids with the image of the entire Arab population. The Arabs who could see the difference between the trees that the children symbolized and the forest that the Arab countries symbolized, responded by expressing anger at the savagery they had witnessed but did not feel humiliated by the display of depraved Jewish behavior. In the eyes of the Arabs, the Jews had humiliated themselves more than anything else which is probably the worst that has happened to them since the days when the Nazis used to humiliate them for fun.
On the other hand, many Americans -- especially those who were employed on the civilian side of the military when it was headed by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz -- got the message that it was acceptable to try and humiliate the Arabs no matter who they are or where they happen to be. This sort of thrust by the Jewish propaganda machine coupled with the constant drumming of the notion that Saddam Hussein must be humiliated led to the disastrous war in Iraq and the depraved behavior of the American military at Abu Ghraib. The result has been that the few sick American trees who took orders from the Jewish lobby became the symbol that has represented the American forest ever since. And that symbol remains so badly soiled, it may never get cleaned up.
Finally, it can be said that the Jewish propaganda machine has done to America's good name around the world what the Japanese Imperial Navy has failed to do to the US Navy at Pearl Harbor: completely wipe it out. And the people in America who have listened for decades to Jewish writers like Tom Friedman of the New York Times tell them about Arab pathologies have seen nothing about the Arabs to suggest a disease. But looking at the way that their country has been ruined at the level of its economy, its military and its good name, many Americans are beginning to wonder if the pathology plaguing their country and plaguing the world is not Judaism itself. The Nazis said that Judaism was a disease; Friedman says better use the word pathology instead.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Say It In A Panic, Rupert
They never say it better than when they say it in a panic. The Wall Street Journal have done it again; they are showing how a gang rape operation is planned for, constructed from the bottom up and executed from the top down. They did it on May 11, 2011 when they unwittingly displayed the entire operation in an editorial they titled: “Engaged to Hamas” and subtitled: “The cost of the Palestinian Authority's 'unity' with terrorists.”
Actually, the call to gang rape comes near the end of the editorial in an infamous paragraph that contains three sentences. The first sentence is this: “Even if Hamas did let Mr. Fayyad keep his job, donors will have to reassess support.” Here, the editorial writers of the Journal call on donors around the world to join the gang and participate in the policy that was put into action by Israel decades ago aimed at starving the Palestinian people to force them into submission or to take flight. This Israeli policy -- which is unprecedented in history -- is the social equivalent of raping an entire people. Luckily, the Palestinians have managed to castrate the Jewish attackers more often than the attackers have succeeded at raping the Palestinians.
The second sentence in that infamous paragraph is this: “Twenty-nine Senators, in a letter organized by two Democrats, have called on President Obama to cut off aid to any Palestinian government that includes Hamas.” Here is where there is a fun story to tell. When it became evident to the American legislators that the world was beginning to see them as pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos, they decided they were not going to let the Jewish members among them use either house of the Congress or the rules pertaining to voting without a quorum to hold a session with a handful of members then tell the World that the US Congress has unanimously (meaning all 535 members) voted in favor of a resolution supporting Israel. And so, the Jewish lobby came up with an alternative plan which they put into action with regard to this matter.
What they did was to implement a plan of division of labor. Working with the House of Representatives, they had the chair and the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations write a letter to Mr. Abbas warning him of the consequences of uniting with Hamas. A short time after that, they had 8 Democratic Jewish senators and 1 independent who sits with them find 2 non-Jewish Democratic senators each to team up with them and thus form a gang of 27 senators. And the purpose of this formation would be to sign a blackmail letter to the President demanding that he forcefully oppose the proposed unity government in Palestine or else.
And this whole thing was done so hush hush that even the mighty Wall Street Journal did not get wind of it in time. But the rumors were flying around and some people used them to put two and two together except that they counted wrong. They knew there was 2 of one kind and 27 of another kind which adds up to 29, and this is how they published the story. Since everybody copies from everybody else in this dirty business, everybody talked about 29 senators when, in fact, there were only 27. What made the matter even more confusing was the fact that 2 senators were picked by the Jewish lobby to be the initiators of the letter to the President which is the customary thing to do. As a result of this, the panicky Wall Street Journal deduced that there were 27 senators plus the 2 initiators for a total of 29. But they did not even know that all of them were Democrats and so they ventured to call Democratic only the two initiators of the letter which they designated as having “organized” the letter to the President. End of this story.
The third sentence in that infamous paragraph is this: “The U.S. provides $550 million a year.” Not so. This amount is money that was promised to the Palestinian Authority but has not gone yet -- not this year and not before -- although some US money has gone to the PA in the last couple of years.
Now, why is it important to know these things? Because it tells you that this editorial -- like most editorials of its kind in American publications -- are not good enough to be used as a handkerchief, to use an Oriental saying. If you want to know why, look at the first paragraph of this editorial: “Before the ink dries on last week's deal ... the Obama Administration is trying to suggest it's no big deal. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the door remained open ... Other officials suggested that Hamas might change...” Here you see how much the people who have no idea what they are talking about pretend to speak with an authority that surpasses that of the Administration which they criticize.
Having established a fake authority on the subject, they now use their fake accomplishment to generalize it so as to encompass not just the Palestinian question but the entire Arab and Muslim worlds. Just look at the gall they display in this passage: “So some things haven't changed in the post-bin Laden, Arab Spring Middle East. A Palestinian leadership ... continues to think ... And the West sounds willing to indulge them, fearing that any other response could jeopardize their near religious pursuit of the peace process.” The trick here is that having associated the Palestinian question with Bin Laden, they now use what they consider to be their great scoring of a magnificent point to accomplish what Israel and the Jewish organizations have been trying to accomplish for decades: Kill the peace process while pretending to promote it.
And having attributed to themselves all these glorious characteristics and capabilities, why stop here? Why not go on and establish themselves as an authority on Mahmoud Abbas who is President of the PA, on many Europeans and on some Americans? Look how they did this: “By agreeing to form a 'unity government' with Hamas ... Mahmoud Abbas may think he can boost his popularity ... Many Europeans and some Americans will buy the argument that Israel's reluctance to negotiate peace forced Mr. Abbas's hand.” And if they can do all this, they can also predict the future. Here is a taste of that: “Yet the engagement won't be easy to ignore. Pending agreement on a new cabinet ... the ... group that's now confined to the Gaza strip will have access to billions in foreign aid. There's no way for any donor or for Israel ... to ensure that money won't be used by Hamas...”
In their eyes this would be a bad thing to happen because as they put it: “Hamas leader Khaled Meshal makes no secret of [his] intentions ... He said on Sunday that Hamas may continue to fight Israel even after the formation of a Palestinian state. Speaking to the New York Times last week, Mr. Meshal said that the goal was 'a Palestinian state in the 1967 lines with Jerusalem as its capital, without any settlements or settlers, not an inch of land swaps and respecting the right of return' of all Palestinian refugees and their offspring to Israel itself. This leaves little room for discussion.” Here again they try to kill the idea of resuming the negotiations while blaming it on the Palestinians.
What is generally accepted and what the editors of the Journal deliberately ignore is that before negotiations begin or resume after a halt, each side state their maximal position and go from there. Meshal has a position and he stated it. Israel also has a maximal position but it is not stating it yet because it wants to establish a few more of the “fait accompli” it is known to do when no one is looking. In fact, it has not stated a position since the beginning because its goal has always been a greater Israel that extends from the Nile to the Euphrates. To state this position now is to commit suicide. To state a lesser position is to lock itself into it and never hope to expand beyond that. So then, what to do? Well, the thing to do is choose ambiguity. You do this and you get your mouthpieces such as the Wall Street journal to attack the Palestinians. These people have all the legal rights on their side but are willing to compromise. Israel wants no compromise because it wants the whole thing and so you paint the Palestinians as evil and the Israelis as angels.
But there is one thing wrong with all this: It makes people everywhere on this planet sick of Israel and of America.
Actually, the call to gang rape comes near the end of the editorial in an infamous paragraph that contains three sentences. The first sentence is this: “Even if Hamas did let Mr. Fayyad keep his job, donors will have to reassess support.” Here, the editorial writers of the Journal call on donors around the world to join the gang and participate in the policy that was put into action by Israel decades ago aimed at starving the Palestinian people to force them into submission or to take flight. This Israeli policy -- which is unprecedented in history -- is the social equivalent of raping an entire people. Luckily, the Palestinians have managed to castrate the Jewish attackers more often than the attackers have succeeded at raping the Palestinians.
The second sentence in that infamous paragraph is this: “Twenty-nine Senators, in a letter organized by two Democrats, have called on President Obama to cut off aid to any Palestinian government that includes Hamas.” Here is where there is a fun story to tell. When it became evident to the American legislators that the world was beginning to see them as pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos, they decided they were not going to let the Jewish members among them use either house of the Congress or the rules pertaining to voting without a quorum to hold a session with a handful of members then tell the World that the US Congress has unanimously (meaning all 535 members) voted in favor of a resolution supporting Israel. And so, the Jewish lobby came up with an alternative plan which they put into action with regard to this matter.
What they did was to implement a plan of division of labor. Working with the House of Representatives, they had the chair and the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations write a letter to Mr. Abbas warning him of the consequences of uniting with Hamas. A short time after that, they had 8 Democratic Jewish senators and 1 independent who sits with them find 2 non-Jewish Democratic senators each to team up with them and thus form a gang of 27 senators. And the purpose of this formation would be to sign a blackmail letter to the President demanding that he forcefully oppose the proposed unity government in Palestine or else.
And this whole thing was done so hush hush that even the mighty Wall Street Journal did not get wind of it in time. But the rumors were flying around and some people used them to put two and two together except that they counted wrong. They knew there was 2 of one kind and 27 of another kind which adds up to 29, and this is how they published the story. Since everybody copies from everybody else in this dirty business, everybody talked about 29 senators when, in fact, there were only 27. What made the matter even more confusing was the fact that 2 senators were picked by the Jewish lobby to be the initiators of the letter to the President which is the customary thing to do. As a result of this, the panicky Wall Street Journal deduced that there were 27 senators plus the 2 initiators for a total of 29. But they did not even know that all of them were Democrats and so they ventured to call Democratic only the two initiators of the letter which they designated as having “organized” the letter to the President. End of this story.
The third sentence in that infamous paragraph is this: “The U.S. provides $550 million a year.” Not so. This amount is money that was promised to the Palestinian Authority but has not gone yet -- not this year and not before -- although some US money has gone to the PA in the last couple of years.
Now, why is it important to know these things? Because it tells you that this editorial -- like most editorials of its kind in American publications -- are not good enough to be used as a handkerchief, to use an Oriental saying. If you want to know why, look at the first paragraph of this editorial: “Before the ink dries on last week's deal ... the Obama Administration is trying to suggest it's no big deal. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the door remained open ... Other officials suggested that Hamas might change...” Here you see how much the people who have no idea what they are talking about pretend to speak with an authority that surpasses that of the Administration which they criticize.
Having established a fake authority on the subject, they now use their fake accomplishment to generalize it so as to encompass not just the Palestinian question but the entire Arab and Muslim worlds. Just look at the gall they display in this passage: “So some things haven't changed in the post-bin Laden, Arab Spring Middle East. A Palestinian leadership ... continues to think ... And the West sounds willing to indulge them, fearing that any other response could jeopardize their near religious pursuit of the peace process.” The trick here is that having associated the Palestinian question with Bin Laden, they now use what they consider to be their great scoring of a magnificent point to accomplish what Israel and the Jewish organizations have been trying to accomplish for decades: Kill the peace process while pretending to promote it.
And having attributed to themselves all these glorious characteristics and capabilities, why stop here? Why not go on and establish themselves as an authority on Mahmoud Abbas who is President of the PA, on many Europeans and on some Americans? Look how they did this: “By agreeing to form a 'unity government' with Hamas ... Mahmoud Abbas may think he can boost his popularity ... Many Europeans and some Americans will buy the argument that Israel's reluctance to negotiate peace forced Mr. Abbas's hand.” And if they can do all this, they can also predict the future. Here is a taste of that: “Yet the engagement won't be easy to ignore. Pending agreement on a new cabinet ... the ... group that's now confined to the Gaza strip will have access to billions in foreign aid. There's no way for any donor or for Israel ... to ensure that money won't be used by Hamas...”
In their eyes this would be a bad thing to happen because as they put it: “Hamas leader Khaled Meshal makes no secret of [his] intentions ... He said on Sunday that Hamas may continue to fight Israel even after the formation of a Palestinian state. Speaking to the New York Times last week, Mr. Meshal said that the goal was 'a Palestinian state in the 1967 lines with Jerusalem as its capital, without any settlements or settlers, not an inch of land swaps and respecting the right of return' of all Palestinian refugees and their offspring to Israel itself. This leaves little room for discussion.” Here again they try to kill the idea of resuming the negotiations while blaming it on the Palestinians.
What is generally accepted and what the editors of the Journal deliberately ignore is that before negotiations begin or resume after a halt, each side state their maximal position and go from there. Meshal has a position and he stated it. Israel also has a maximal position but it is not stating it yet because it wants to establish a few more of the “fait accompli” it is known to do when no one is looking. In fact, it has not stated a position since the beginning because its goal has always been a greater Israel that extends from the Nile to the Euphrates. To state this position now is to commit suicide. To state a lesser position is to lock itself into it and never hope to expand beyond that. So then, what to do? Well, the thing to do is choose ambiguity. You do this and you get your mouthpieces such as the Wall Street journal to attack the Palestinians. These people have all the legal rights on their side but are willing to compromise. Israel wants no compromise because it wants the whole thing and so you paint the Palestinians as evil and the Israelis as angels.
But there is one thing wrong with all this: It makes people everywhere on this planet sick of Israel and of America.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Congressional Letters To Two Presidents
The usually gridlocked Congress of the United States of America is on the move again not to do something for America or the American people but do it for Israel and the Jewish causes. Twenty seven Democratic senators signed a letter to Mr. Barack Obama who is President of the United States. And two members of the House of Representatives signed a letter to Mr. Mahmoud Abbas who is President of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Both letters rail against the announcement made to the effect that the PA (which governs the West Bank of the Jordan River) and Hamas (which governs the Gaza Strip) have agreed to form a Palestinian unity government. And both letters remind their recipients of the dire consequences of this decision.
The letter to Mr. Obama says this: “Soon after this agreement was signed, senior Hamas official Mahmoud Zahar declared that 'our plan does not involve negotiations with Israel or recognizing it'. Hamas and other Iranian-backed terrorist groups in Gaza have also stepped up their smuggling of Iranian arms and increased their mortar and rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, firing more than 130 during the past month alone and nearly 300 this year.” This is the kind of attempted fraud you cannot elevate to the level of the intellect by calling it intellectual fraud because it does not take a human brain to commit it; it takes the brain of an alley cat. Look what these purring idiots do. They have a sentence that says this: “Soon after this agreement was signed,” and they follow it with another sentence that says: “Hamas … also stepped up their smuggling of Iranian arms and increased their mortar and rocket attacks...” which they hope will make the reader believe that the smuggling and the attacks happened after the signing of the agreement. And there is even the suggestion that they may have happened as a result of the agreement because the authors do not clearly come out and say that the smuggling and the firing happened before the announcement was made. This is clearly intended to mislead the readers who may not be focused enough to catch the error. But lest the alley cats be caught with their congressional pants down, they quickly go on to say this: “...during the past month alone and ... this year” which gives them cover in case someone objects to the child-like attempt at deception, and gives them the chance to plead innocent at the accidental misuse of this inappropriate turn of a phrase. But they are fooling no one.
They go on to tell the President what stand the United States must take as a nation and what is imperative for him to do as President. And they remind him of the law that was passed by this same body of idiots pertaining to the conditions that were attached to the financial aid which America gives to the PA, and to the relationship that the latter is allowed to have with Hamas. And then they display -- without the slightest hint of shame -- their true color which is that although they were elected by the American people to serve the American people, they are now and they will always remain the slavish servants of Israel and the Jewish lobby. This is how they formulate it in the letter: “...the legitimacy of any peace process must always be weighed against the assurances Israel needs ... as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated 'there is no possibility for peace with both.”' And this, of course, is the refrain that is all too familiar to students of Middle Eastern affairs. It has its roots in the infamous blurt: “If you're not with us, you're against us” and it is the one that has turned the American superpower into a slouching giant that slouched by standing with Israel through thick and thin.
After this literary performance you would think the alley cats will want to close the letter by affirming their loyalty to America, suggesting for the record -- if for nothing else -- that their concern for Israel is secondary to the concern they have for America, but you would be mistaken. There was an age, now long gone, when there was a modicum of respect for America's interests in the US Congress. It was a time when lawmakers that pleaded the cause of a foreign entity associated the interests of that entity with those of America and urged the President to do one thing or another because it was good for America and coincidentally good for the entity as well. But not so since Israel became the sole focus of the US Congress. Now the Congressional characters show no reluctance to taking a perverted approach like this: “As fellow Democrats, we … urge you to make clear to President Abbas and the international community the United States’ opposition to a Fatah-Hamas unity government that … will severely harm relations with the United States. The Palestinian Authority need [not] pursue futile and harmful efforts to join with Hamas or seek recognition of Palestinian statehood at the UN.”
The thing is that now, loyalty to the party supersedes loyalty to the country. This is why the signatories of the letter call on the President to do something not in the name of America but in the name of the Democratic Party which they hint they will destroy to ruin the chances of the President being reelected should he refuse to bend to the will of Netanyahu and mobilize what is left of America's diplomatic resources and moral force and do as told. And finally, they mention the Palestinian effort that seeks recognition at the UN because the subject will soon be taken up by the General Assembly. If a resolution favorable to the Palestinians is passed – which is expected -- the occupation of Palestine by Israel will transform into the act of a sovereign that is occupying another sovereign. It will become a whole new ball game where even the American veto will not protect Israel from the consequences of its never ending criminal activities.
As to the letter that was sent to Mr. Abbas, it is signed by two members of the House, one Democrat and one Republican, which the Jewish publications worldwide are trumpeting as being solid proof of American bipartisan support for Israel. The two members begin the letter like this: “We write to express serious concerns about your intentions to seek recognition of an independent Palestinian state at the United Nations and the pursuit of a unity government with Hamas ... We urge you to end these actions and return to ... the only path to a viable and durable two-state agreement.” Right here, the signatories of the letter tell the Palestinian people that unlike Israel which owes its existence to the United Nations, Palestine should come into existence if and only if Israel so decides; and America will make certain that this will be the case because the Congress will commit all of America's resources to frustrate the will of the international community no matter the consequences.
And then the two Congressional characters do something that is neither here nor there as far as the Palestinian issue is concerned given that the Congress has made it clear it will play a destructive role in the matter as we have seen. But what the two characters have done can still serve as a valuable lesson to the students of history who look for a case study that will help them understand how and why the superpower that was America was wrestled down to the level of a politically failed state by its own legislature under Jewish influence. Simply put, what these two have done is scan everything that pertains to the subject and have picked the points that make their case while ignoring anything else that might have balanced their view and might have set them on the road to a possible compromise. Similarly and in more general terms, when you have two opposite sides such as the Republicans and the Democrats repeatedly engage in this sort of behavior, the result is the gridlock that you see holding America in a sclerotic grip today.
Here is how the two American legislators put it to the Palestinian President: “The 1993 Oslo Accords were ... part of ... [the] peace process. In fact, a letter from ... the PLO 'commits itself to a peaceful resolution ... and declares that all outstanding issues ... will be resolved through negotiations.' That understanding enabled Israel to turn over governance ... to an elected Palestinian government.” What they ignore is that 18 years have passed between 1993 and 2011 and Palestine is still under occupation except for the Gaza strip from where the savage and primitive Israeli boots on the ground were kicked out by the struggle of the unarmed Palestinian people who fought and paid a high price in life and in destroyed properties.
They go on to say this: “Since that time, the U.S. … government has provided billions of dollars … to promote economic growth ... fiscal independence ... and meet humanitarian needs.” They say billions of dollars but the actual amount may not reach one billion. In the meantime, they ignore the fact that Israel has been receiving at least three billion dollars in military aid during each of those 18 years in addition to the arrangements by which tax exempt dollars flow from America to Israel like a hurricane, the reason why the occupation of Palestine has endured for this length of time and why the people of Palestine are kept in an American concentration camp with the Star of David flying over it. And make no mistake, Israel alone could not last one year but it remains there as defiant as ever year after year because America maintains it there which makes it so that the crimes which Israel commits are American crimes.
As you can see, the letter of these two is an act of deception but this is not where it stops because after the deception comes the blackmail. This is how they do it: “U.S. aid is predicated on the premise that your government has demonstrated a firm commitment to pursuing efforts to establish a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace with Israel. As you know, U.S. law also requires a commitment ... and ... prohibits ... any power-sharing ... Your current courses of action undermine the purposes and threaten the provision of United States assistance and support.” They say what they wish for is a just, lasting and comprehensive peace with Israel. They don't try to define the words, and they don't try to draw up a balance sheet as to which side has negotiated in good faith and which side has negotiated to gain time while committing every war crime recognized as such by the Geneva Convention. They don't do this because if they did, they would have to mention the continued building of settlements in the occupied territories which is an act of terror that is openly financed with American money.
And then comes the last idle threat of a morally bankrupt stance that has lasted long enough to cause the world more damage than the never erected thousand year Reich of a never fulfilled mad man. Here is how the two characters of the American Congress put it: “We have been strong supporters of aid to the Palestinian Authority ... However, our ability to support current and future aid would be severely threatened if you ... continue with your current efforts.” They are the legislators and they are supposed to create their own ability to do things but they correctly point out that their abilities will be restricted because they know that prostitutes do not own their lives in the final analysis, therefore they do not control what they can and cannot do. Practicing moral prostitution is what they have been reduced to doing by the mother of all evil ideologies that has begotten every evil ideology plaguing mankind since the beginning of time. And moral prostitution is all they do now in the Congress of the United States of America.
My hunch is that Mr. Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority will be so polite as to avoid making them feel that their letter is not worth the paper it is written on, and may even thank them for writing to him. But I don't have to be polite and my feeling is that the letter is not worth the toilet paper it is written on. And so the appropriate thing for me to do is to say to these characters that they can take their letter and their aid and shove them both. Palestine will be better off without them.
The letter to Mr. Obama says this: “Soon after this agreement was signed, senior Hamas official Mahmoud Zahar declared that 'our plan does not involve negotiations with Israel or recognizing it'. Hamas and other Iranian-backed terrorist groups in Gaza have also stepped up their smuggling of Iranian arms and increased their mortar and rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, firing more than 130 during the past month alone and nearly 300 this year.” This is the kind of attempted fraud you cannot elevate to the level of the intellect by calling it intellectual fraud because it does not take a human brain to commit it; it takes the brain of an alley cat. Look what these purring idiots do. They have a sentence that says this: “Soon after this agreement was signed,” and they follow it with another sentence that says: “Hamas … also stepped up their smuggling of Iranian arms and increased their mortar and rocket attacks...” which they hope will make the reader believe that the smuggling and the attacks happened after the signing of the agreement. And there is even the suggestion that they may have happened as a result of the agreement because the authors do not clearly come out and say that the smuggling and the firing happened before the announcement was made. This is clearly intended to mislead the readers who may not be focused enough to catch the error. But lest the alley cats be caught with their congressional pants down, they quickly go on to say this: “...during the past month alone and ... this year” which gives them cover in case someone objects to the child-like attempt at deception, and gives them the chance to plead innocent at the accidental misuse of this inappropriate turn of a phrase. But they are fooling no one.
They go on to tell the President what stand the United States must take as a nation and what is imperative for him to do as President. And they remind him of the law that was passed by this same body of idiots pertaining to the conditions that were attached to the financial aid which America gives to the PA, and to the relationship that the latter is allowed to have with Hamas. And then they display -- without the slightest hint of shame -- their true color which is that although they were elected by the American people to serve the American people, they are now and they will always remain the slavish servants of Israel and the Jewish lobby. This is how they formulate it in the letter: “...the legitimacy of any peace process must always be weighed against the assurances Israel needs ... as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated 'there is no possibility for peace with both.”' And this, of course, is the refrain that is all too familiar to students of Middle Eastern affairs. It has its roots in the infamous blurt: “If you're not with us, you're against us” and it is the one that has turned the American superpower into a slouching giant that slouched by standing with Israel through thick and thin.
After this literary performance you would think the alley cats will want to close the letter by affirming their loyalty to America, suggesting for the record -- if for nothing else -- that their concern for Israel is secondary to the concern they have for America, but you would be mistaken. There was an age, now long gone, when there was a modicum of respect for America's interests in the US Congress. It was a time when lawmakers that pleaded the cause of a foreign entity associated the interests of that entity with those of America and urged the President to do one thing or another because it was good for America and coincidentally good for the entity as well. But not so since Israel became the sole focus of the US Congress. Now the Congressional characters show no reluctance to taking a perverted approach like this: “As fellow Democrats, we … urge you to make clear to President Abbas and the international community the United States’ opposition to a Fatah-Hamas unity government that … will severely harm relations with the United States. The Palestinian Authority need [not] pursue futile and harmful efforts to join with Hamas or seek recognition of Palestinian statehood at the UN.”
The thing is that now, loyalty to the party supersedes loyalty to the country. This is why the signatories of the letter call on the President to do something not in the name of America but in the name of the Democratic Party which they hint they will destroy to ruin the chances of the President being reelected should he refuse to bend to the will of Netanyahu and mobilize what is left of America's diplomatic resources and moral force and do as told. And finally, they mention the Palestinian effort that seeks recognition at the UN because the subject will soon be taken up by the General Assembly. If a resolution favorable to the Palestinians is passed – which is expected -- the occupation of Palestine by Israel will transform into the act of a sovereign that is occupying another sovereign. It will become a whole new ball game where even the American veto will not protect Israel from the consequences of its never ending criminal activities.
As to the letter that was sent to Mr. Abbas, it is signed by two members of the House, one Democrat and one Republican, which the Jewish publications worldwide are trumpeting as being solid proof of American bipartisan support for Israel. The two members begin the letter like this: “We write to express serious concerns about your intentions to seek recognition of an independent Palestinian state at the United Nations and the pursuit of a unity government with Hamas ... We urge you to end these actions and return to ... the only path to a viable and durable two-state agreement.” Right here, the signatories of the letter tell the Palestinian people that unlike Israel which owes its existence to the United Nations, Palestine should come into existence if and only if Israel so decides; and America will make certain that this will be the case because the Congress will commit all of America's resources to frustrate the will of the international community no matter the consequences.
And then the two Congressional characters do something that is neither here nor there as far as the Palestinian issue is concerned given that the Congress has made it clear it will play a destructive role in the matter as we have seen. But what the two characters have done can still serve as a valuable lesson to the students of history who look for a case study that will help them understand how and why the superpower that was America was wrestled down to the level of a politically failed state by its own legislature under Jewish influence. Simply put, what these two have done is scan everything that pertains to the subject and have picked the points that make their case while ignoring anything else that might have balanced their view and might have set them on the road to a possible compromise. Similarly and in more general terms, when you have two opposite sides such as the Republicans and the Democrats repeatedly engage in this sort of behavior, the result is the gridlock that you see holding America in a sclerotic grip today.
Here is how the two American legislators put it to the Palestinian President: “The 1993 Oslo Accords were ... part of ... [the] peace process. In fact, a letter from ... the PLO 'commits itself to a peaceful resolution ... and declares that all outstanding issues ... will be resolved through negotiations.' That understanding enabled Israel to turn over governance ... to an elected Palestinian government.” What they ignore is that 18 years have passed between 1993 and 2011 and Palestine is still under occupation except for the Gaza strip from where the savage and primitive Israeli boots on the ground were kicked out by the struggle of the unarmed Palestinian people who fought and paid a high price in life and in destroyed properties.
They go on to say this: “Since that time, the U.S. … government has provided billions of dollars … to promote economic growth ... fiscal independence ... and meet humanitarian needs.” They say billions of dollars but the actual amount may not reach one billion. In the meantime, they ignore the fact that Israel has been receiving at least three billion dollars in military aid during each of those 18 years in addition to the arrangements by which tax exempt dollars flow from America to Israel like a hurricane, the reason why the occupation of Palestine has endured for this length of time and why the people of Palestine are kept in an American concentration camp with the Star of David flying over it. And make no mistake, Israel alone could not last one year but it remains there as defiant as ever year after year because America maintains it there which makes it so that the crimes which Israel commits are American crimes.
As you can see, the letter of these two is an act of deception but this is not where it stops because after the deception comes the blackmail. This is how they do it: “U.S. aid is predicated on the premise that your government has demonstrated a firm commitment to pursuing efforts to establish a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace with Israel. As you know, U.S. law also requires a commitment ... and ... prohibits ... any power-sharing ... Your current courses of action undermine the purposes and threaten the provision of United States assistance and support.” They say what they wish for is a just, lasting and comprehensive peace with Israel. They don't try to define the words, and they don't try to draw up a balance sheet as to which side has negotiated in good faith and which side has negotiated to gain time while committing every war crime recognized as such by the Geneva Convention. They don't do this because if they did, they would have to mention the continued building of settlements in the occupied territories which is an act of terror that is openly financed with American money.
And then comes the last idle threat of a morally bankrupt stance that has lasted long enough to cause the world more damage than the never erected thousand year Reich of a never fulfilled mad man. Here is how the two characters of the American Congress put it: “We have been strong supporters of aid to the Palestinian Authority ... However, our ability to support current and future aid would be severely threatened if you ... continue with your current efforts.” They are the legislators and they are supposed to create their own ability to do things but they correctly point out that their abilities will be restricted because they know that prostitutes do not own their lives in the final analysis, therefore they do not control what they can and cannot do. Practicing moral prostitution is what they have been reduced to doing by the mother of all evil ideologies that has begotten every evil ideology plaguing mankind since the beginning of time. And moral prostitution is all they do now in the Congress of the United States of America.
My hunch is that Mr. Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority will be so polite as to avoid making them feel that their letter is not worth the paper it is written on, and may even thank them for writing to him. But I don't have to be polite and my feeling is that the letter is not worth the toilet paper it is written on. And so the appropriate thing for me to do is to say to these characters that they can take their letter and their aid and shove them both. Palestine will be better off without them.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Dishonor Among Thieves And Plagiarists
If someone believes that the Jewish hate and incitement machine has been turned off, they should perish the thought. If they want to know why, they can read the May 3, 2011 editorial in the Wall Street Journal which came under the title: “The Muslim World After Bin Laden” and the subtitle: “Despite much promise, Egypt's new start shows real perils ahead.” It screams: Same old, same old.
When George W. Bush who is better known as the W ranted to the world that: “If you're not with us, you're against us” he was not expressing what the grey matter in his skull had formulated since there is no evidence there is matter in that skull -- grey or any other color. Instead, he was mouth-letting what the Jewish hate and incitement machine had stuffed in his oral orifice. We now see that the infamous machine is getting busy again making the likes of the Journal editors repeat the old rant. This time, however, the machine is being a little more subtle in approach and more measured in tone.
The editors of the Wall Street Journal begin their piece by coloring the Middle Eastern canvas with a fake background. On top of that, they drop the obligatory symbols of the old satanic fantasy that the Jewish hate machine is known to have woven into a demonic tapestry. Look what they say in their opening paragraph: “The Arab Spring is remaking the region ... The best hope is that [it will] take the region past the ideology of Islamist terror, but this can only happen if its new leaders take it there.” The editors use a few more paragraphs after that to reinforce the view that the Middle East is as bad as the canvas shows it to be. They then tell the story of the Arab masses that rose up against their leaders to demand change. But the editors hasten to add that they worry about the new leaders who may fail to listen to the masses and not deliver on the changes they asked for. And so the writers of the piece urge us to start worrying along with them.
But what is the source of their worry? Well, it is that Egypt has brokered a deal on a unity government among the Palestinians, something that Israel said was necessary for the peace process to resume because it can only negotiate with one party and not with two. But now that Israel got what it asked for, you find her mouthpieces in America crying foul. But don't try to go figure, my friend, because you will be wasting your time. Rather, take this performance as being an expression of bad faith, something that comes naturally to these people. And the part that should not surprise you about this whole thing is that the editors of the Journal say they were surprised by the event. The fact is that Egypt has been trying for years to bring the Palestinian factions together. When the effort failed, other powers got into the act and tried their hand. When it looked like they might pull it off, dancing erupted in the streets of Tel Aviv and New York not at the prospect that a Palestinian unity government was about to be formed but at the evidence that Egypt's influence was waning in the Middle East. But then the effort of these powers also failed whereupon the matter remained in limbo until Egypt tried again and seems to have succeeded at last.
And now, the editors of the Wall Street Journal are worked up again; and guess why. It is because they say that Egypt did not bother to inform the US or Israel about the talks beforehand. Good for Egypt. But let me ask this question: Where were these two when a flurry of activities pertaining to the talks were taking place in the open for a number of weeks before the deal was announced? Were they asleep at the switch? And there is worse because when you have an Egypt that would surprise the WSJ editors, you have an Egypt that would do things abruptly and overwhelm their reflexes. Look what these inconsiderate Egyptians did; they abruptly announced plans to reopen the border crossing into Gaza. Mind you, they did not open the crossing yet, they only announced that they plan to reopen it. But the problem is that they made the announcement abruptly which forces the question: What is wrong with these Egyptians? Don't they know they must first announce they are about to announce they will be doing something they cannot yet announce until they make an announcement about the upcoming announcement? Phew! Someone should sit with these Egyptians and teach them something about the etiquette of making announcements that are not too abrupt. Maybe a Wall Street Journal editorial writer would volunteer for the job.
And then there is this: “Cairo also plans to establish diplomatic relations with Iran ... an Iranian destroyer recently was allowed to pass through the Suez Canal … A budding Arab democracy ... should have little time for ... Tehran … America's own long-standing support for the Egyptian military may eventually need to be reconsidered.” And why is that? Because of this: “The death of bin Laden disrupts but doesn't bring the death of bin Ladenism ... the early signs out of bellwether Egypt show how much close attention an interested world must still pay [to the region].” This is the subtle way to say that because they are not clearly with us they may surreptitiously be against us. And you, the reader, you are jolted off your seat and you take a deep breath.
At this point you want to stop for a moment and review what has transpired over the decades which makes the editors of the Journal conclude that America has handled the Middle Eastern situation so well it should continue to do more of the same. You tally up the figures and come up with the following. Over the last ten years alone of those decades, America has spent directly a trillion dollars or more and has squandered the potential to earn a few trillions more in order to do one thing. It killed Bin Laden who was no longer an important figure having had the time to build his organization to the point where it could metastasize on its own. And this is what happened, in fact, after the W said yes to his Jewish masters and lifted the pressure on Bin Laden and his organization. He did so to go after fictitious weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that the Israelis said were there when the only weapon massively destroying America was the Jewish lobby in America.
You continue to do the tallying and you find that in addition to the lost trillions in wealth, America killed perhaps as many as a million people and rendered homeless millions more. In the process, ten thousand or so of its own soldiers and its allies perished. In addition, as many as a hundred thousand of its soldiers and those of the allies went home with a permanent disability. And this is not to mention the countless injuries that were inflicted on the people where America took the fight, and the horrendous devastation that was unleashed on their properties. And why all this? Because America was dragged by the nose into fighting Israel's fight in Arab Iraq rather than concentrate on its interests in South Asia. It was the self immolation of a superpower, a treacherous act committed by a moron on command from a little fart called the Jewish lobby. It was something like history never witnessed before, a spectacle as ugly as anything you can imagine.
This record -- so dismal it is a crime committed against the American people -- may be an achievement worth repeating in the eyes of the Journal editors but not in your eyes or mine or the eyes of anyone sane in this world. You think about it for a while and you realize that these events could have taken place only as a result of a series of bad decisions made over a period of time with each decision resulting in America falling flat on its face. But America kept repeating the performance without questioning itself, and so you ask yourself: How can someone repeatedly walk off the road and fall into the ditch without once reconsidering what they are doing? You think hard but cannot come up with a rational answer. And then you unexpectedly stumble on the answer: “This is a case of the blind leading the blind!” you exclaim to yourself. You look for a clue as to where it all started and find something that leads you to the source. You find the term bin Ladenism buried in the editorial piece of the WSJ and the term rings the bell.
Indeed, the term is one that Tom Friedman of the New York Times invented years ago. It was one of the isms he is known to invent when he needs to inject humor in his column. He invented the term bin Ladenism; he used it for a while and then abandoned it. But that was enough for the editors of the Wall Street Journal to steal it and use it without giving credit to its owner. They may not have injected humor in their piece but there is an irony here that is funny nevertheless. It is that Friedman is notorious for stealing things without giving credit to their owners. The most glaring example is that of the world being flat which was invented by an Indian industrialist and used as the title of a Friedman book without acknowledgment. And the fun part comes when you realize that the thief has been robbed by another thief even though there is supposed to be honor among thieves. In any case, the WSJ editors published their piece in the early morning hours of May 3, 2011 not knowing that a few hours later on the same day, Friedman was going to revive his dead creation and use it in a column he wrote on the same subject. Friedman published his column in the New York Times under the title: “Farewell to Geronimo” and as you can see, the result has been that the two thieves painted a picture of themselves as the blind that is leading the blind. And sadly, this picture is also the metaphor that can best describe what the American foreign policy has become in the hand of the blind Neocons who have ditched America more often than all its enemies put together did on previous occasions.
You read Friedman's column and find that he too begins by coloring the Middle Eastern canvas with a fake background. This is how he does it: “There is only one good thing about the fact that Osama bin Laden survived for nearly 10 years ... he lived long enough to see so many young Arabs repudiate his ideology.” The fact is that contrary to what the Jewish hate machine has been spewing with unbounded obsessiveness in North America, the Arabs never stopped for a moment to look at someone else's ideology, be it that of Bin Laden or that of the Jewish hate machine. And they never had the time or the inclination to burn flags. The proof is that the young Arabs have revolted for the same mundane reasons that populations everywhere have revolted at one time or another. As a society the Arabs had reached a level of industrialization that required a new deal be struck between them and their rulers. This is what they asked for and this is what they are in the process of getting.
So then why did Friedman begin his column the way he did? To do something you find only in Judaism. Here is what he did: “The question now [is] ... Can the forces ... get organized … and start building a different Arab future? That is the most important question. Everything else is noise.” With one short paragraph he repudiates everything that was said previously, including what he said himself. And why is that? To prepare you to receive the new noise which he developed for the occasion. You see, my friend, in Judaism they write the history that suits them until it suits them no more at which point they trash what they wrote and rewrite the darn thing all over again. It is as simple as this and as shameless as that. Those who are familiar with this manner of doing journalism call it writing the first draft of chutzpah history.
And so Friedman begins to feed you the noise of his new and improved history which is this: “...we need to recall ... where Bin Ladenism came from. It emerged from a devil’s bargain between oil-consuming countries and Arab dictators. We all -- Europe, America, India, China ... sent the same basic message to the petro-dictators: Keep the oil flowing, the prices low ... Bin Laden and his followers were a product of all the pathologies that were allowed to grow ... across the Arab world.” So here it is in black and white for all to see. When it was convenient for them to do so, Friedman and people like him wrote history as being a clash of civilizations between Israel and the West who stood on one side against the East which included India and China who stood on the other side. But now that the balance of power is shifting toward the East, Friedman and people like him are changing history. It is that they want to begin their machinations by making you believe that India and China are now and have always been in the Jewish pocket alongside America and some other Western nations. From now on and until further notice, official Jewish history says that there was never a clash between the civilizations but there was a secret devil's bargain between the producers of oil and the consumers of same. Period, full stop and don't ask any question because if you do, you will be showing your anti-Semitic streak.
And this is only the beginning of the machinations for, look what else they do to history. They disregard the fact that the Arab populations first rose up in oil poor Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Syria not in oil rich Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar or the UAE. Friedman and company do this to paint a canvas of a Middle East where the petro-dictators, as they call them, did the bad things that have allowed Bin Ladinism to flourish. And the moral of this new and improved history is that if the consumers stop buying Arab oil, they will trash the devil's bargain that still exists between them and the oil producers thus cause bin Ladinism to die a natural death. Of course, cutting off any normal relation that may exist between America and the Arabs and replacing it with a war-like relation has been a strategy of the Jewish organizations for a long time. Their goal being to monopolize America's resources and send them to Israel, they reckon that they can achieve this by first cutting off America's good relation with the Arabs. This done, they will have an easy time infiltrating the corridors of American power, gain access to more of America's resources and send them to Israel. It must be said that these are convoluted intricacies which boggle your mind no matter who you are and how sophisticated you may be.
For the readers to understand this byzantine approach to manipulating the gullible American democracy and turn it into a servile entity to toy with, it must be said that in Judaism history and religion are inseparable. An example of this is the Old Testament which represents the Jewish religion as well as what the “prophets” want us to believe were the historical exploits of the ancient Jewish people. Now, the writing of the Talmud was started eighteen hundred years ago and was meant to be a continuation of the Old Testament. That writing goes on to this day having two mandates to fulfill: First, the Talmud must reflect the Jewish religion as it shape-shifts itself into the different manifestations. Second, it must narrate and record the unfolding history of the modern Jews. For this reason the Talmud remains on the mind of every Jewish writer who finds himself writing something with a religious or a historical bent.
And that is where the trouble begins because there is a huge difference between the mentality of the stone age and that of modern thinking. In primitive thought no line of demarcation exists between reality and fantasy. People are allowed to speak of real events with an extravagance that belongs to the realm of fantasy; and this is how history and religion mesh into being one and the same as can be detected from reading the Old Testament. The modern Jewish writers try to emulate this style when they describe the exploits of the modern Jews. Those who can write in the most extravagant of ways and get away with it because they know how to lie without getting caught are highly esteemed; and they are considered for inclusion in the Talmud. This is why you see the likes of Friedman lie about events, engage in intellectual fraud and mutilate history. But this is also the style that betrays his desire to be declared a Jewish prophet and a messiah; a style that renders what he says null and void in the eyes of the sane. You will find a lot more of this sort of stuff in his column if you are curious to see more. In the meantime there are important things to know about the Middle East lest America be dragged into the sewer of Jewish fantasy yet again where Friedman and company wish to take it.
People have wondered why the Arab Spring -- as they call it – has spread mostly through the Arab republics and not the Arab monarchies. The answer is simple. It is that the republics were once monarchies and were shaken by a military led coup. Thus, the populations in these places have had the experience of a regime change and they know what they can expect to see on the other side of a revolt. They are not too apprehensive about going through the experience again if this will shake things up. As for the people who live in the monarchies, they have not had the luxury of the military showing them what a revolt can lead to. This is why it is less likely that the masses in these places will organize a popular revolt and carry it out as easily as did the masses in the republics. Of course, nothing can be ruled out because you can never tell how much the pressure will build up but do not lose sight of the fact that the rulers are aware of the situation and they are working diligently to relieve the pressure.
And this leads to a question concerning another phenomenon that was observed in the past little while; one that used to be called Nasserism. It is this: Was the late President Nasser of Egypt correct when he regarded all the Arabs as being of one soul, one mind and one heart? Well, the events of the past few months seem to indicate that despite their differences, it could well be that most if not all the Arabs aspire with one soul, think with one mind and beat with one heart. But only time will tell the full story.
In any case, the policy makers in America who are not prepared to sell their country to the Jewish organizations should base their thinking on these realities rather than give in to the machinations of the spin doctors attached to the Jewish hate and incitement machine who work for Israel and the Jewish causes to the detriment of America and everyone else.
When George W. Bush who is better known as the W ranted to the world that: “If you're not with us, you're against us” he was not expressing what the grey matter in his skull had formulated since there is no evidence there is matter in that skull -- grey or any other color. Instead, he was mouth-letting what the Jewish hate and incitement machine had stuffed in his oral orifice. We now see that the infamous machine is getting busy again making the likes of the Journal editors repeat the old rant. This time, however, the machine is being a little more subtle in approach and more measured in tone.
The editors of the Wall Street Journal begin their piece by coloring the Middle Eastern canvas with a fake background. On top of that, they drop the obligatory symbols of the old satanic fantasy that the Jewish hate machine is known to have woven into a demonic tapestry. Look what they say in their opening paragraph: “The Arab Spring is remaking the region ... The best hope is that [it will] take the region past the ideology of Islamist terror, but this can only happen if its new leaders take it there.” The editors use a few more paragraphs after that to reinforce the view that the Middle East is as bad as the canvas shows it to be. They then tell the story of the Arab masses that rose up against their leaders to demand change. But the editors hasten to add that they worry about the new leaders who may fail to listen to the masses and not deliver on the changes they asked for. And so the writers of the piece urge us to start worrying along with them.
But what is the source of their worry? Well, it is that Egypt has brokered a deal on a unity government among the Palestinians, something that Israel said was necessary for the peace process to resume because it can only negotiate with one party and not with two. But now that Israel got what it asked for, you find her mouthpieces in America crying foul. But don't try to go figure, my friend, because you will be wasting your time. Rather, take this performance as being an expression of bad faith, something that comes naturally to these people. And the part that should not surprise you about this whole thing is that the editors of the Journal say they were surprised by the event. The fact is that Egypt has been trying for years to bring the Palestinian factions together. When the effort failed, other powers got into the act and tried their hand. When it looked like they might pull it off, dancing erupted in the streets of Tel Aviv and New York not at the prospect that a Palestinian unity government was about to be formed but at the evidence that Egypt's influence was waning in the Middle East. But then the effort of these powers also failed whereupon the matter remained in limbo until Egypt tried again and seems to have succeeded at last.
And now, the editors of the Wall Street Journal are worked up again; and guess why. It is because they say that Egypt did not bother to inform the US or Israel about the talks beforehand. Good for Egypt. But let me ask this question: Where were these two when a flurry of activities pertaining to the talks were taking place in the open for a number of weeks before the deal was announced? Were they asleep at the switch? And there is worse because when you have an Egypt that would surprise the WSJ editors, you have an Egypt that would do things abruptly and overwhelm their reflexes. Look what these inconsiderate Egyptians did; they abruptly announced plans to reopen the border crossing into Gaza. Mind you, they did not open the crossing yet, they only announced that they plan to reopen it. But the problem is that they made the announcement abruptly which forces the question: What is wrong with these Egyptians? Don't they know they must first announce they are about to announce they will be doing something they cannot yet announce until they make an announcement about the upcoming announcement? Phew! Someone should sit with these Egyptians and teach them something about the etiquette of making announcements that are not too abrupt. Maybe a Wall Street Journal editorial writer would volunteer for the job.
And then there is this: “Cairo also plans to establish diplomatic relations with Iran ... an Iranian destroyer recently was allowed to pass through the Suez Canal … A budding Arab democracy ... should have little time for ... Tehran … America's own long-standing support for the Egyptian military may eventually need to be reconsidered.” And why is that? Because of this: “The death of bin Laden disrupts but doesn't bring the death of bin Ladenism ... the early signs out of bellwether Egypt show how much close attention an interested world must still pay [to the region].” This is the subtle way to say that because they are not clearly with us they may surreptitiously be against us. And you, the reader, you are jolted off your seat and you take a deep breath.
At this point you want to stop for a moment and review what has transpired over the decades which makes the editors of the Journal conclude that America has handled the Middle Eastern situation so well it should continue to do more of the same. You tally up the figures and come up with the following. Over the last ten years alone of those decades, America has spent directly a trillion dollars or more and has squandered the potential to earn a few trillions more in order to do one thing. It killed Bin Laden who was no longer an important figure having had the time to build his organization to the point where it could metastasize on its own. And this is what happened, in fact, after the W said yes to his Jewish masters and lifted the pressure on Bin Laden and his organization. He did so to go after fictitious weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that the Israelis said were there when the only weapon massively destroying America was the Jewish lobby in America.
You continue to do the tallying and you find that in addition to the lost trillions in wealth, America killed perhaps as many as a million people and rendered homeless millions more. In the process, ten thousand or so of its own soldiers and its allies perished. In addition, as many as a hundred thousand of its soldiers and those of the allies went home with a permanent disability. And this is not to mention the countless injuries that were inflicted on the people where America took the fight, and the horrendous devastation that was unleashed on their properties. And why all this? Because America was dragged by the nose into fighting Israel's fight in Arab Iraq rather than concentrate on its interests in South Asia. It was the self immolation of a superpower, a treacherous act committed by a moron on command from a little fart called the Jewish lobby. It was something like history never witnessed before, a spectacle as ugly as anything you can imagine.
This record -- so dismal it is a crime committed against the American people -- may be an achievement worth repeating in the eyes of the Journal editors but not in your eyes or mine or the eyes of anyone sane in this world. You think about it for a while and you realize that these events could have taken place only as a result of a series of bad decisions made over a period of time with each decision resulting in America falling flat on its face. But America kept repeating the performance without questioning itself, and so you ask yourself: How can someone repeatedly walk off the road and fall into the ditch without once reconsidering what they are doing? You think hard but cannot come up with a rational answer. And then you unexpectedly stumble on the answer: “This is a case of the blind leading the blind!” you exclaim to yourself. You look for a clue as to where it all started and find something that leads you to the source. You find the term bin Ladenism buried in the editorial piece of the WSJ and the term rings the bell.
Indeed, the term is one that Tom Friedman of the New York Times invented years ago. It was one of the isms he is known to invent when he needs to inject humor in his column. He invented the term bin Ladenism; he used it for a while and then abandoned it. But that was enough for the editors of the Wall Street Journal to steal it and use it without giving credit to its owner. They may not have injected humor in their piece but there is an irony here that is funny nevertheless. It is that Friedman is notorious for stealing things without giving credit to their owners. The most glaring example is that of the world being flat which was invented by an Indian industrialist and used as the title of a Friedman book without acknowledgment. And the fun part comes when you realize that the thief has been robbed by another thief even though there is supposed to be honor among thieves. In any case, the WSJ editors published their piece in the early morning hours of May 3, 2011 not knowing that a few hours later on the same day, Friedman was going to revive his dead creation and use it in a column he wrote on the same subject. Friedman published his column in the New York Times under the title: “Farewell to Geronimo” and as you can see, the result has been that the two thieves painted a picture of themselves as the blind that is leading the blind. And sadly, this picture is also the metaphor that can best describe what the American foreign policy has become in the hand of the blind Neocons who have ditched America more often than all its enemies put together did on previous occasions.
You read Friedman's column and find that he too begins by coloring the Middle Eastern canvas with a fake background. This is how he does it: “There is only one good thing about the fact that Osama bin Laden survived for nearly 10 years ... he lived long enough to see so many young Arabs repudiate his ideology.” The fact is that contrary to what the Jewish hate machine has been spewing with unbounded obsessiveness in North America, the Arabs never stopped for a moment to look at someone else's ideology, be it that of Bin Laden or that of the Jewish hate machine. And they never had the time or the inclination to burn flags. The proof is that the young Arabs have revolted for the same mundane reasons that populations everywhere have revolted at one time or another. As a society the Arabs had reached a level of industrialization that required a new deal be struck between them and their rulers. This is what they asked for and this is what they are in the process of getting.
So then why did Friedman begin his column the way he did? To do something you find only in Judaism. Here is what he did: “The question now [is] ... Can the forces ... get organized … and start building a different Arab future? That is the most important question. Everything else is noise.” With one short paragraph he repudiates everything that was said previously, including what he said himself. And why is that? To prepare you to receive the new noise which he developed for the occasion. You see, my friend, in Judaism they write the history that suits them until it suits them no more at which point they trash what they wrote and rewrite the darn thing all over again. It is as simple as this and as shameless as that. Those who are familiar with this manner of doing journalism call it writing the first draft of chutzpah history.
And so Friedman begins to feed you the noise of his new and improved history which is this: “...we need to recall ... where Bin Ladenism came from. It emerged from a devil’s bargain between oil-consuming countries and Arab dictators. We all -- Europe, America, India, China ... sent the same basic message to the petro-dictators: Keep the oil flowing, the prices low ... Bin Laden and his followers were a product of all the pathologies that were allowed to grow ... across the Arab world.” So here it is in black and white for all to see. When it was convenient for them to do so, Friedman and people like him wrote history as being a clash of civilizations between Israel and the West who stood on one side against the East which included India and China who stood on the other side. But now that the balance of power is shifting toward the East, Friedman and people like him are changing history. It is that they want to begin their machinations by making you believe that India and China are now and have always been in the Jewish pocket alongside America and some other Western nations. From now on and until further notice, official Jewish history says that there was never a clash between the civilizations but there was a secret devil's bargain between the producers of oil and the consumers of same. Period, full stop and don't ask any question because if you do, you will be showing your anti-Semitic streak.
And this is only the beginning of the machinations for, look what else they do to history. They disregard the fact that the Arab populations first rose up in oil poor Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Syria not in oil rich Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar or the UAE. Friedman and company do this to paint a canvas of a Middle East where the petro-dictators, as they call them, did the bad things that have allowed Bin Ladinism to flourish. And the moral of this new and improved history is that if the consumers stop buying Arab oil, they will trash the devil's bargain that still exists between them and the oil producers thus cause bin Ladinism to die a natural death. Of course, cutting off any normal relation that may exist between America and the Arabs and replacing it with a war-like relation has been a strategy of the Jewish organizations for a long time. Their goal being to monopolize America's resources and send them to Israel, they reckon that they can achieve this by first cutting off America's good relation with the Arabs. This done, they will have an easy time infiltrating the corridors of American power, gain access to more of America's resources and send them to Israel. It must be said that these are convoluted intricacies which boggle your mind no matter who you are and how sophisticated you may be.
For the readers to understand this byzantine approach to manipulating the gullible American democracy and turn it into a servile entity to toy with, it must be said that in Judaism history and religion are inseparable. An example of this is the Old Testament which represents the Jewish religion as well as what the “prophets” want us to believe were the historical exploits of the ancient Jewish people. Now, the writing of the Talmud was started eighteen hundred years ago and was meant to be a continuation of the Old Testament. That writing goes on to this day having two mandates to fulfill: First, the Talmud must reflect the Jewish religion as it shape-shifts itself into the different manifestations. Second, it must narrate and record the unfolding history of the modern Jews. For this reason the Talmud remains on the mind of every Jewish writer who finds himself writing something with a religious or a historical bent.
And that is where the trouble begins because there is a huge difference between the mentality of the stone age and that of modern thinking. In primitive thought no line of demarcation exists between reality and fantasy. People are allowed to speak of real events with an extravagance that belongs to the realm of fantasy; and this is how history and religion mesh into being one and the same as can be detected from reading the Old Testament. The modern Jewish writers try to emulate this style when they describe the exploits of the modern Jews. Those who can write in the most extravagant of ways and get away with it because they know how to lie without getting caught are highly esteemed; and they are considered for inclusion in the Talmud. This is why you see the likes of Friedman lie about events, engage in intellectual fraud and mutilate history. But this is also the style that betrays his desire to be declared a Jewish prophet and a messiah; a style that renders what he says null and void in the eyes of the sane. You will find a lot more of this sort of stuff in his column if you are curious to see more. In the meantime there are important things to know about the Middle East lest America be dragged into the sewer of Jewish fantasy yet again where Friedman and company wish to take it.
People have wondered why the Arab Spring -- as they call it – has spread mostly through the Arab republics and not the Arab monarchies. The answer is simple. It is that the republics were once monarchies and were shaken by a military led coup. Thus, the populations in these places have had the experience of a regime change and they know what they can expect to see on the other side of a revolt. They are not too apprehensive about going through the experience again if this will shake things up. As for the people who live in the monarchies, they have not had the luxury of the military showing them what a revolt can lead to. This is why it is less likely that the masses in these places will organize a popular revolt and carry it out as easily as did the masses in the republics. Of course, nothing can be ruled out because you can never tell how much the pressure will build up but do not lose sight of the fact that the rulers are aware of the situation and they are working diligently to relieve the pressure.
And this leads to a question concerning another phenomenon that was observed in the past little while; one that used to be called Nasserism. It is this: Was the late President Nasser of Egypt correct when he regarded all the Arabs as being of one soul, one mind and one heart? Well, the events of the past few months seem to indicate that despite their differences, it could well be that most if not all the Arabs aspire with one soul, think with one mind and beat with one heart. But only time will tell the full story.
In any case, the policy makers in America who are not prepared to sell their country to the Jewish organizations should base their thinking on these realities rather than give in to the machinations of the spin doctors attached to the Jewish hate and incitement machine who work for Israel and the Jewish causes to the detriment of America and everyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)