Wednesday, March 14, 2012

The Rapid Poisoning Of Uncle Sam

I did mention on a couple of occasions the guy I once knew who, talking about “them” in the media, would say: They keep fornicating (he used another word) us in the eyes and ears, and they leave their syphilis in our sculls. At other times he would say they transplanted a dick in our heads and they keep ejaculating instructions telling us what to do. But I never had the occasion to demonstrate how this might work in real life because I did not have a concrete example I could discuss in detail. I do now.

Eric Trager who is a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy -- one of the most damned septic tanks parading as think tank – wrote an article: “Caught in Egypt's Political Cross-Fire” and had it published in the New York Times on March 14, 2012. When you read it casually without using a critical eye, you find it to be placid, lukewarm and inert on the surface which is probably how most people will read it. But in reality, this article is infernal in its goal. It is the poison that is slowly transforming Uncle Sam into a zombie of the Frankenstein model, a creature programmed only to respond to commands that come to it from the Judeo-Israeli propaganda machine.

The article discusses the foreign organizations that were caught operating illegally in Egypt. You no longer detect in this piece the shrill hysteria that used to fuel earlier discussions on the subject. Instead, you find this: “The prosecutions targeted the Americans, but they weren't really about them.” With this sleight of hand, Eric Trager has managed to wipe clean the historical tidbits that were left on the table and proven false given that they were the work of amateurs. Having cleared the deck, Trager then prepared it for the brand new history that he started to write, having in mind new goals specifically suited to the new circumstances.

Relax, he says, the way things are done in Egypt may have changed a little but “...the crisis didn't change America's core interests in Egypt.” And he makes it clear that instead of dealing with a single player the way it used to be, America will from now on have to deal with multiple players, thus: “Washington [should] develop a strategy for persuading the various political forces in Egypt to cooperate in pursuit of those interests.”

To develop a new game plan, however, he finds himself compelled to first admit to something that the amateur shrill voices of hysteria used to deny vehemently. Here is what he says now: “Both institutes, which Congress founded in 1983, train political parties … The support they offer dissidents … leads to … claim[s] they violate the host country's sovereignty.” Even though he is no longer denying that something happened, he still minimizes its gravity. But the reality is that these would not be empty claims because to support the dissidents of a country is by definition to violate the sovereignty of that country. And this is what the dispute was all about.

He now describes his new game plan by doing something that is as Judeo-Israeli as moral syphilism can ever get. He invents a whole new history to suit his new purpose, and he does it by first attacking someone. In this case, he attacks Fayza Abul Naga who is Egypt's iron lady, the minister of planning and international cooperation, whom they used to say was in cahoot with the Egyptian military. Not anymore because the new and improved history requires a new and improved truth, therefore, you get this: “By many accounts, Egypt's ruling military … was unaware that the prosecutor had placed travel bans on American … workers.”

And this is where he takes a few paragraphs to rewrite history after which he comes back to his original point and the goal of this whole exercise: “The fact that the Americans' ordeal wasn't really about them but about Egypt's own internal power struggle leaves American interests in Egypt essentially unchanged.” Okay you say, but what is America's interest? you ask. And he gives you an answer, but no matter what lofty words he uses, it remains that America's interest in the Middle East has been reduced to only one; maintain Israel on the life support system without which it could not survive on its own more than a few months. Here is his complete answer: “The greatest interest remains ensuring that the next government maintains Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel, counters violent extremism and upholds pluralism and minority rights.”

He now reveals his hand as to why he played the game the way that he did and why he rewrote history the way that he did: “But to avoid being trapped as a pawn among Egypt's squabbling parties, Washington should condition future economic aid to Egypt on an agreement by all parties to respect these interests.” Instead of dealing with only one party, America must learn to deal with several parties, he says, it is no more difficult than that. But to an observer, all this looks like intellectual masturbation of the most Jewish kind at the end of which comes the ejaculation in Uncle Sam's scull. Here it is: “There is good reason to believe that this conditionality could work: Egypt is approaching bankruptcy, and Washington has unique leverage over Cairo through its influence in international financial institutions.”

These are the words of someone who is totally ignorant about economics, history and social science. In economics, consider this: At most, what Egypt needs to fix its budgetary problems is 10 billion dollars. With a population that is only 4 times as large, America needs close to 2 trillion dollars (200 times as large) to fix its own budgetary problems. In history, consider this: America tried that same trick on Egypt. In the end, Egypt got its Aswan dam and the hydroelectric power station while America got scorn. In social science, consider this: The people of Egypt have said to their current and to future rulers they must stay away from America so long as that country will continue to stink the Jewish moral syphilism of barking idle threats. And Trager knows this because he said it himself that America is at this point in time very unpopular among the Egyptian masses.

Never before have so few so morally mutilated a culture that is this massive and this diverse at such a rapid speed. The devil and his army must be allied to them.