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.