From Al Gore to Al Jazeera

Of all the Arabic television channels that I watch from time to time, nothing has jolted me more than the Al Jazeera anchor who, while speaking Arabic, pronounced the name of El-Baradei (the Egyptian who used to head the UN nuclear watchdog) the English way. When so pronounced during an Arabic conversation, the name – as common as it is in the Arab world – sounds so jarring, I immediately concluded this anchor had never heard or read the name in Arabic. This meant that the news which he and Al Jazeera have been reporting was gathered from foreign sources even when they pertained to Arab affairs. What a let down that was.

Moreover, I visit the Al Jazeera English website from time to time. I find the texts and the video clips to be closer in resemblance to the American websites of the mainstream media than the Arabic websites. In addition, when the English Channel, Al Jazeera America (AJAM) was launched, the website ceased to look like an American mainstream and started to look more like a Jewish extremist website. And you can tell from this that I have no affection for that television channel. So why am I writing about it?

To be accurate, I am not writing about it; I am writing about someone who wrote about it. That someone is Clifford D. May who wrote: “Al Jazeera Comes to America,” a column that also has the subtitle: “A foreign dictator's media operation, right in your living room.” It was published on August 29, 2013 in National Review Online. The subtitle heightened my curiosity and prompted me to read the article because I remembered seeing May as he participated in discussions on Al Jazeera. I wondered if he was mad at them because they did not pay him enough or something. Or maybe they did not pay him at all. I was curious.

Needless to say that reading the article, I was disappointed to find that Clifford May was not reporting on a personal dispute he was having with the cable company. Instead, he had assumed the traditional role of the Jewish totalitarian that is wearing the uniform of defender of democracies. In case you don't know, this is a variation on the wolf in sheep's clothing. But you ask: What's his beef? Here it is: “I'm suggesting Al Jazeera America will have a mission, drive specific messages and observe certain prohibitions.” Whoa! Did you get this? May is upset because Al Jazeera will have a point of view. Can you believe it? A cable channel that has a point of view rather than be neutral like Fox News or MSNBC. Scandalous. What has the world come to?

But where is the scandal here? Is it that a cable channel was predicted to develop a point of view, or is it that the president of a foundation masquerading as being for the “Defense of Democracies” was caught mouthing off sentiments like those of a Nazi chief of thought control? Well, the author tells you why he is having these sentiments. It is that the owners of the cable company are “dictators who happen to fund Hamas and the Muslim brotherhood.” There is also the fact that Walter Russell Mead said Al Jazeera is Qatar's press poodle. If this were not enough, there is Shibley Telhami who said Al Jazeera gave voice to Osama Bin Laden. Want more? Here is more: Fouad Ajami wrote that the network “is not subtle television.” This is enough to get you to swear in Italian: Mamma mia. What? Are these swearing words?

This said, the author of the column tells of the people that the Arabic Al Jazeera has featured over the years. There is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi who praised Imad Mughniyah, but the author does not say that the praising happened on air on Al Jazeera. Nevertheless, he says that Qaradawi favors the “spread of Islam until it conquers the entire world.” Hey, my friend, this sounds like that thing calling itself Christian broadcasting something. And there is that other one: Jews for Christ or some such name. Does it mean Clifford May will soon be going after these stations as well?

Till this happens, you ask: What to do? To answer the question, he gives this example: “Last month, 22 Al Jazeera staffers in Egypt resigned over their employers' 'biased' coverage.'” And this is what causes May to try and nudge the Canadian and American staffers who just joined Al Jazeera: “Soledad (O'Brien,) Joie (Chen,) Sheila (MacVicar,) John (Seigenthaler,) David (Shuster,) Ali (Velshi): I'm sure you've heard the persistent rumors that Qatar is financing al-Qaeda groups in Syria. What would your employers say if you proposed to investigate?” Rather than wait to see what will transpire, and how the new hires will respond, he mentions Christopher Harper who found the Al Jazeera coverage to have “an anti-American undercurrent.” And he gives two unconvincing examples to illustrate this point.

All of that being so very thin, you wonder why he bothered to start writing the article in the first place. And you discover why, when he at last begins to show his true colors: “Al Jazeera America's first guest was Stephen Walt, the Harvard Professor who, in the words of Jeffrey Goldberg, 'makes his living scapegoating Jews.'” Oh yes, that's what it's all about. It's about a cable channel that he does not see ever becoming Jewish enough even though it is showing tendencies of being as extremely Jewish as extreme can be.

But how to make sure that AJAM will not, in time, start to look like the parent company? You want to know how? I'll tell you how. It is that the Jews have the lethal weapon which helps them achieve their goals. They have a dagger they will plant deep into the heart of the American democracy – which is what they normally do when they want something that is not theirs. They know how to use the Congress whose powers they will employ to rape the process of making laws, and pass the bills that will place Jewish interests above American interests. And they will get what they want as they always do – courtesy of the Congress of imbeciles.

Look how it all begins with the use of an apparently innocent interjection placed between parentheses: “Al Jazeera was available in 48 million households. We customers don't get to decide which network we receive (a situation I wish Congress would address.)” Give it time, my dear reader, and you'll see this thing mushroom to become the laws that will trigger the class action lawsuits that will force Al Jazeera to pay billions of dollars or flee an America that is ruled by the moral clarity of Jewish ambiguity. Don't ask me what that is; I haven't a clue.

Finally, Al Gore who made this whole thing possible by selling his cable company to Al Jazeera for hundreds of millions of dollars may be offered his old company back free of charge.

A Funny Thing Happened to the NY Times

A funny thing happened to the New York Times on the way to journalistic respectability; it called on Ursula Lindsey to bail it out, having fallen into the pit of ugly blabbermouth. It happened only 4 days ago that the NY Times published an article written by its own Bill Keller under the title: “Adrift on the Nile” in which the author used all his skills, revived the old stereotypes and repeated the now dead and buried talking points to once again call on America and its allies to punish Egypt the way they did in the decades of the 1950s and 60s for refusing to hand itself over to the powers which then ruled the world, but now have the ability to only tell pathetic publications like the NY Times what points of view to advance and what to suppress.

A response to that article and to another one published a day earlier in Forbes Magazine under the title: “Egypt crisis Extends to the Indo-Pacific” came on this website under the title “The two Ugly Faces of Ugliness.” The Forbes article is an open and public incitement to all terrorists in the region to commit acts of terror and sabotage against Egypt and other chokepoints. The authors of the article tell the would-be terrorists how to do things to effectuate the most damage to installations, thus be most effective at crippling them.

Stung by the fact that it found itself in company with the Forbes Magazine inciters to terror, the New York Times called on Ursula Lindsey to do something that will have the effect of blaming the victim for something that did not happen, thus exonerate the NY Times for something that did happened. Lindsey obliged and wrote: “The Tall Tales of Cairo” which the Times published on August 29, 2013.

Poor Ursula must have raked her brains to find something to write about because on this late date in August, she could only find something that goes back to “Earlier this month, Egypt's State Information Service...” This done, she tells us what she is writing about: “It was galling to be lectured about journalistic standards by the authorities of a country whose own media have been peddling so much vitriol and fantasy recently … This isn't journalism; it's disinformation.”

She tells of a front-page story that came in a local newspaper describing an agreement that was struck between an Egyptian and an American to divide Egypt. This would be facilitated apparently by 300 armed fighters entering the country from Gaza. She acknowledges that “conspiracy theories proliferate around the world” and goes on to explain that people are “feeling especially vulnerable these days, living in a region torn apart by civil strife and threatened with outside military intervention.”

Get you, Ursula; but who do you blame for all that? And she responds: “Conspiracies have a particular hold in places like Egypt, where people are very politicized and believe that there is more to every development than meets the eye.” Shocking isn't it? Only in Egypt, Eh!

Oh no, not only in Egypt, she now tells us. “Private TV Channels and newspapers are cheerleading the country's war on terrorism with a vehemence described as post-9/11 U.S. news channels on steroids.” She further informs us that: “one American channel has become popular here. TV satellite channels have been showing segments from Fox News.” And she gives an example: “A prominent Egyptian newspaper interviewed a Republican and quoted him as saying that the Brotherhood climbed to power, backed by the Obama administration.” By the way, that was an American Republican not an Egyptian republican.

So then what's this whole thing about, Ursula Lindsey? And she responds: “Their goal isn't so much to make people believe these conspiracy theories as to [sow] confusion in order to avoid accountability.” Accountability? Accountability about what, Lindsey? Or to you, editors of the New York Times.  About what, you ask? Ah well … aren't you aware of the old saying: Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies?

Try something more intelligent New York Times, or make a strategic decision to stop blabbermouthing the kind of nonsense that can only please your Jewish masters.

The Economics of Reverse Symmetry

If we can answer the question: Why is it that a shoeshine boy, a carpenter or a physician from Bangladesh settling in America instantly earns 40 times as much as before, we can begin to solve a problem that is slated to remain with planet Earth for perhaps another three generations. The problem is that of industries leaving the advanced economies to relocate in the emerging ones, thus creating a class that gets wealthier in each economy, and a class that gets poorer in each of them.

At the core of the problem is an exchange rate of the currencies that is supposed to reflect the level of development the two economies have attained. But this may be a distortion of reality rather than a reflection of it because – like everything else – the exchange rate depends on supply and demand where the supply of money depends on the central banks of the two countries; and the demand for it depends on what a small group of consumers desire and what they go for.

If, for example, without fundamentally altering either economy, something extraneous happens to cause the exchange dealers to trade 1 American dollar for 2 Bangladeshi takas instead of the dollar for 80 takas, the income of the shoeshine boys, the carpenters and the physicians in the two countries will look comparable. The situation will last as long as the extraneous circumstances will persist. But this is not happening because if it did, there will come a point when the Bangladeshi economy will start to collapse, and the economic life of a large population will come close to a screeching halt. In fact, something serious will begin to happen at the start of the taka's rise, and there will be upheaval even before the exchange rate has reached the level of 2 takas per dollar.

Why is that? It is because those in Bangladesh who have more money than they need to subsist, will spend the extra they have on luxury items imported from abroad. Instead of investing the money in the development of the country – thus creating opportunities for their countrymen to participate in the effort, and share in the fruits – they will maintain their lifestyle of imported luxury, relying on the extraneous circumstances to help them bankroll it. Some of these people may even send money abroad where they will keep it in secret accounts so that if things turn sour in their country, they will go abroad and live the high life there.

But what could be the extraneous circumstances that would trigger a scenario of this sort? Well, we may look at two examples, each of which can teach a different lesson. There is the island of Cyprus where the money of foreign oligarchs, mostly Russian, deposited in the banks of the island maintained the local pound at a high level of exchange. Still, despite the fact that the country was not developed in any recognizable sense, its small population was able to maintain a high level of consumption, therefore give the appearance of enjoying a well earned high standard of living. Then it happened that the foreigners needed to withdraw some of the money, and take it somewhere else. This is when the supply-demand equation was upset enough to cause the upheaval that ensued in Cyprus and the necessity for a bailout from the European Union and world financial institutions.

However, the Cypriots may get lucky because another extraneous circumstance may come to the rescue. This would be the large deposit of natural gas that is said to exist off the shores of their island. If this materializes, Cyprus will be able to export some of the gas, thus earn the foreign currency it will need to develop its industries and have a real economy. In fact, this leads us to the second example which is that of Dubai, an emirate of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Like the rest of the Emirates as well as the Arab nations of Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain – these small nations are using their oil wealth to develop industries they will rely on when the hydrocarbons they possess will have been depleted.

The lesson to be learned here is that if you are a nation with a small population, you may get away for a time relying solely on the inflow of hot money blowing your way. When that stops, you will find yourself in trouble. The same thing will happen if you possess natural resources that get depleted before you develop your economy enough to live well without the resources. But if you are a nation with a large population, the only thing you can do is develop your economy the old fashioned way – to use a cliché. And there lies the difficulty because the old way is to mimic the Industrial Revolution that happened centuries ago but missed your nation. The countries that participated in that Revolution are the developed economies of today with whom you maintain a reverse sort of symmetry; one that you must try to redress.

Reverse symmetry can be explained this way: Business people want to produce the best possible products – be they goods or services – at the lowest cost. The way to achieve this is to team up with entrepreneurs in the underdeveloped economies and employ local labor to produce the breakthroughs that were made in the advanced economies. Most of the time the local workers will require training to acquire skills for which they will receive wages that are higher than those enjoyed by the rest of the population. The net effect will be that the entrepreneurs and the workers who deal with foreigners will have more money to spend than the rest of the population. They will drive prices up, and this will make the other people poorer. As the gap between the two keeps widening, the response will be to pay everyone else more money. But when this happens, it will help devalue the local currency; and this will further deteriorate the rates of exchange.

How to solve this problem? Rather than wait three generations for the problem to resolve itself when the planet will have been fully industrialized, we should now recognize that there will always be people of all sorts in every society – advanced or underdeveloped. Those who fall behind in the advanced economies will have to be helped while those in the developing economies who get ahead will be required to share some of their good fortune with the rest of society. These two objectives can be attained while at the same time redressing the imbalance that exists in the economic symmetry.

To this end, a worldwide agreement can be had whereby the wages of those who fall behind in the advanced economies will be subsidized by the government. For example, the minimum wage will be kept at a level that will not kill the job market, but will be supplemented by a government payout to bring it up to a living wage. As to those who get lucky in the developing economies working with foreign enterprises, they will get paid just a little less than their counterparts in the advanced economies but also just a little more than the local population. For example if a carpenter is paid 20 dollars an hour in America, and the equivalent of 0.5 dollar in Bangladesh, he will be paid say, 15 dollars by a foreign company but will take home the equivalent of only 1 dollar. The difference of 14 dollars will be paid to the government to use in the development of the country, thus help advance the rest of society.

Some kind of worldwide mechanism will have to be developed to see to it that the system is functioning as well as it should. This will be necessary to make sure that the developed economies are not over-subsidizing, and that the underdeveloped economies are not misusing the money paid out to them.

US Diplomacy's Portable Schoolyard

No doubt, there must be a number of metaphors you can use to describe the conduct of American foreign diplomacy. The one that comes to mind at this time is the schoolyard mentality that American politicians and diplomats take with them everywhere they go anywhere in the world.

The biggest preoccupation that most high school kids harbor is the matter of relationships. It all boils down to this: “How do others see me? What must I do to be loved by them?” Likewise, Americans have been made to worry about their image abroad by the realization that they no longer command the respect that their forefathers had earned with past achievements, and was lost by them for reasons they still do not understand.

What most American researchers who probe into this matter do not realize is that the failure to put their finger on the problem plaguing them is directly related to what gave rise to the problem in the first place. In other words, the moment that these researchers discover why they don't have the right answer is the moment they will trip on the answer.

Here is the invisible key: There came a moment in the evolution of America's so-called democracy that people were warned they will no longer be tolerated saying that a given course of action may be good for Israel but not for America. This meant that what was good for Israel must automatically be considered good for America whether or not it will cost American lives; whether or not it will deplete the nation's treasury. And so, it stands to reason that the moment America will seize this key and recognize it for what it is, will be the moment that much of the nation's problems will start resolving themselves.

But how did matters escalate to the point where a respected true democracy became a laughable so-called democracy? Well, the result of what people saw as being a “Jewish edict” that was here and that was meant to be enforced – is that most Americans adhered to the warning. But there was the exception of a handful of people who tried to defy the edict. In the blink of an eye, these people vanished from the scene, and everyone else learned the lesson. It was that Jewish dictatorship was here, and every Jew became a thought police watching what you say and what write. Say or write the wrong thing; someone will see and report it, and you're toast.

The result of this Jewish form of cultural tyranny has been that in a short period of time, American foreign diplomacy was refashioned to serve Israel and only Israel – and no American dared to open their mouth. In the eyes of the world, America became a joke for people to laugh at without necessarily loving what they are laughing about. Hence, America's new preoccupation with its image abroad, and the mentality of the schoolyard that American politicians and diplomats take with them everywhere they go because they cannot face the reality that they are living under a Jewish dictatorship.

Now, having this backgrounder in the mind, we can go over the essay written by Walter Russell Mead and published in the Wall Street Journal on August 24, 2013 under the title: “The Failed Grand Strategy in the Middle East”. We look at what he is trying to do, and explore what realities flow from what he says and what he tries to hide. It will take time before you can break down all what he says, and digest it enough to internalize it. But when you have done that, something will jump at you. It will not be something you see at the beginning of the essay but one that comes in the middle. And that's where you must start the analysis.

Here is the passage that must be viewed as one of the most intellectually dishonest piece of writing ever done by someone: “What happened in Egypt was that the military came to believe that Mubarak was attempting to engineer the succession of his son, turning Egypt from a military republic to a dynastic state. The generals fought back; when unrest surged, the military stood back and let Mr. Mubarak fall.” The truth is that the people of Egypt were the ones who came to believe that Mubarak was attempting to engineer the succession of his son. They were the ones who fought back by filling the streets and the squares of the nation, telling Mubarak “erhal” which is Arabic for go away. This was the unrest that surged; the one that forced the military to oust Mubarak. It was not a surge that made the military stand back and let Mubarak fall like says Mead with such screaming dishonesty.

But why commit a dishonest act that is this obvious, this risky and this damnable? Because the latest brainchild of the Jewish establishment is to erase the face of the Egyptian public, and put the military at the center of the Egyptian state. More than that, it is meant to put the military at the center of Egyptian life. The ultimate aim of the Jewish plan is to use the power of the purse that the American Congress has, to control the military of Egypt, and do with that country what they wish. It is to proceed as if the 90 million Egyptians in existence today have nothing to say in the matter; it is to proceed as if they had vanished from the face of the earth. It will be the establishment of a Jewish style so-called democracy; the way things are in America today.

There is another thing you need to know as you read the Mead article. It is that the Jewish establishment is so desperate to have this plan come into effect, it has instructed its mouthpiece Walter Mead to be nice to everyone and not offend anyone, especially President Obama whom Mead now says he voted for in 2008. Even in the matter that once stirred the bile of Netanyahu and prompted Mead to denigrate Obama in response, Mead now discusses the incident without mentioning Netanyahu. Look at the transformation: “The break with Israel came early … when President Obama … believed [he] could force Israel to declare a total settlement freeze … The resulting flop was President Obama's first big public failure in foreign policy.” The author, as you can see, now puts Israel and not Netanyahu above his own President.

Above and beyond all that, what you need to know as you read the Walter Mead article is what other goals these people have in mind. There are two: First, the war against Islam must continue unabated. This is how he formulated the idea: “the struggle against terror is going to be harder than we hoped.” Second, Iran must be destroyed. And this is how he formulated the idea: “the focus must now return to Iran.”

You see, my friend, the American people are taken for granted so much so that they do not figure in the plan of the Jewish establishment. It is as if 310 million faces had been erased from the face of the earth and will only be revived when called upon to boot the rascals out. They will get another group of rascals in who will serve Israel as much as the ones that were booted out. And this will happen because Israel is supreme; it is above America, and no one will dispute this odd situation unless they are prepared to become toast.

The Two Ugly Faces of Ugliness

An observer watching the evolving mood in Egypt today, especially the mood that ordinary people have developed with regards to America, cannot help but conclude that the people of Egypt have a dim view of that country. The Egyptians are not only aware that America calls itself a democracy; they are aware how that so-called democracy works.

Simply put, anything that happens in America today starts happening when characters of the think tanks, opinion makers, pundits and commentators begin a media campaign to have that thing done. They pressure the Congress that subverts the Constitution, thus force the President to do as they wish. And what they wish is never what is good for America; it is what is good for the lobby groups that set the chain of events in motion.

Two articles appearing in prestigious American publications show how this works. The first was published on August 25, 2013 in Forbes magazine under the title: “Egypt Crisis Extends to the Indo-Pacific” and was written by Iyad Dakka and J. Berkshire Miller. The second was published on August 26, 2013 in the New York Times under the title: “Adrift on the Nile” and was written by Bill Keller. The first article openly gives instructions on how to sabotage Egypt even if this will hurt the world. The second tells what steps must be taken to wrest Egypt away from the hands of Egyptians, and hand it over to someone else.

The Forbes article is another case where would-be short sellers are using a major publication to bring the markets crashing down with a general panic they try to bring about by inciting the people who would commit a horrendous act. They are the characters generally referred to as terrorists.

What strikes you when you read the article is that it contains nothing that can be useful to an investor or to someone engaged in any sort of legitimate business. What it contains in a practical sense is an instruction sheet that would be useful only to terrorists who want to do maximum damage to the world economy by damaging Egypt. The authors of the article tell the terrorists how to do it the surest way; the easiest way.

In fact, the sheet lists and describes “the world's most important geopolitical chockpoints” and tells the would-be terrorists how to go about doing maximum damage to the Suez Canal, the most important of the chockpoints. This is how they put it: “A successful major terrorists attack, or series of coordinated smaller attacks, would send strong symbolic messages to support their insurgencies.” As you can see, the authors not only tell the terrorists what to do and how to do it, they cheer them in advance so as to encourage them to the hilt.

Of course, Dakka and Miller are not going to admit they are inciting the terrorists to sabotage the Canal and the other chockpoints, and so they formulate their message by saying: “Militants in the region know that striking the Canal and the Pipeline would be a direct blow to the heart of the Egyptian national security [that] bring in over USD $5 billion of hard currency annually.”

But instructions that are this voluminous and this detailed cause us to ask the question: How do these writers know what the militants know? And we don't have to wait for the answer because they took the trouble to indicate what it might be. It is that they preceded their own instructions with a telling sentence: “Keep in mind that the Canal has been opened for 38 continuous years with no major disruptions.” With this, the authors are telling the terrorists: Look what a high value target you have here. It has eluded so many of your kind for so long, it is the grand prize that is waiting to be plucked and enjoyed. Go for it, men; go for it!

Waiting for this to happen, Dakka and Miller begin to sabotage Egypt with the tool they have now at their disposal, and that is the badmouth. To this end, they start by pretending to speak for the whole world: “The international community is keeping an eye on the deteriorating situation in Egypt. The country is a powder keg and any hope … seem distant.” This done, they engage in a tap dance of the clowns trying to accomplish two contradictory things at the same time. They want to belittle Egypt yet make it look like a big threat to the world.

This is what they do: “Egypt, while not a major energy exporter, is nonetheless a key component for secure international trade … home of the infamous Suez Canal, coupled by the even more important SUMED oil pipeline, are small but vital arteries in the shipping system.” Well, my friend, this is the first time, and probably the last time, that a bipedal animal at the keyboard of a computer will ever call the Suez Canal infamous. Aside from that, our authors have something between brackets in that same paragraph which tells a great deal as to how they went about gathering the necessary information and saying these things.

Speaking of Egypt, look what they wrote: (ranked 54 6h for oil and 80th for natural gas, respectively.) The first thing you notice is the typo – 54 6h instead of 54th – indicating that they were in a hurry. The second thing you notice is that they do not know Egypt is better positioned in natural gas than it is in oil. While consuming locally most of the oil it produces, it has enough surplus in Natural gas to rank not 80th in export but 12th in the world. America is not much better off as it ranks 8th.

We now look at the New York Times article. After citing the worn out and meaningless principles concerning what should be good for the Middle East, and after the predictable reminder of what President Obama said in that regard, Bill Keller writes: “there is a gloomy sense that Egypt may already be in a kind of death spiral.” So he advises: “It is late for Egypt, but maybe not too late.” And he gives his recipe for saving that country. He says Egypt now receives aid from Europe and America but “Imagine if the West suspended all that aid and deposited it into a kind of trust fund, to be disbursed to help Egypt's recovery if it kept on a course … toward inclusion and the rule of law.”

And this is where the people of the Middle East – more specifically in Egypt at this time – sneer with total and absolute contempt at an America that threatens the Palestinians for suggesting they may be forced to resort to the rule of law by suing Israel for violating the laws that prohibit the building of settlements in the occupied lands. Rule of law? American style rule of law?  And what's that about inclusion? Is it inclusion a la Jewish state, Netanyahu style? Come off it America! Come off it, Bill Keller!

The solution the man has suggested is to organize a gang that will participate in the economic gang rape of Egypt. This was attempted before, and all it has accomplished was to force Egypt to build a sturdy economy.

Finally, there is no way you can see someone say: “Egypt may be in a death spiral” then say let's save it by organizing a gang rape, and remain neutral. The thing that is uttering these words can only be another bipedal animal at the computer keyboard. America seems to be full of them these days.

The Arab Trait Will Have a Say in This

Declan Walsh is the latest to write a piece making comparisons between what is happening in Egypt at this time and what happened in other countries where Islam is the predominant religion. His piece came under the title: “Other Nations Offer a Lesson to Egypt's Military Leaders” and was published in the New York Times on August 25, 2013. While there is merit in some of the writings I have seen so far, one important consideration has escaped those writers. It is one consideration but it is a complex one, and it will take a full treatment to explain it.

It is easy to observe that differences exist in what people do with the ideas they acquire from others, and those they generate themselves. To simplify our probe into this observation, we set aside the role that immaturity may play in this matter, and assume that everyone we study has attained a level of maturity considered to be at least average for their age.

This point made, we can tell that the response to a new idea as exhibited by a person will be based on both the personal and societal traits. That is, the family circumstances around which the person grew up will affect his responses because this is what shapes the personal traits of an individual. Also, the culture to which the person and the family belong will affect his responses because culture is what shapes the traits of a society, which in turn, will help shape the responses of the individual who is raised in that society.

So now the question remains: What do people do with the ideas they acquire from others versus the ideas they generate themselves? Well, as any teacher will tell you, students can be placed in one of two broad categories. There is the category of students who learn by rote without generating ideas of their own. And there is the category of students who generate their own ideas every time you introduce them to something new.

And what you will see happen is that the students who learn by rote will be so attached to what they have acquired, they will consider the ideas to be as absolute as dogmas. In contrast, the students who are capable of generating ideas of their own will not shy away from playing with every new idea they are exposed to. They will dissect it, shape it, put it back together and reshape it to see what can be done with it. In this sense, every new idea becomes a catalyst that prods these people to generate new ideas.

As they grow older, the students who learned by rote at an early age will consider every new idea they meet as being absolutely good or absolutely bad depending on the set of beliefs to which they belong, and will stubbornly hang on to their conclusion as if it were a dogma. As to the students who learned by mixing the ideas they acquired with those they generated themselves – well, these students will mull over every new idea that is thrown at them, and will question how much validity there is in it. They will hang on to it as long as they feel comfortable, and will drop it the moment it begins to cause them discomfort.

As it happens, the observations thus described are not only applicable to individuals but to an entire society as well – however big or small it may be – as long as it is cohesive enough to have developed a set of common values. More specifically, a society may in general hang on to what is called conservative values, and refuse to let go of them even when the winds of change come blowing in its direction. In contrast, another society may in general have adopted what is called liberal values, and be amenable to try anything new that the winds of change choose to blow in its direction.

Of all the values that play a role in a society, nothing seems to be more prevalent or more powerful than religion. It may be a system of beliefs, but religion is also a set of ideas and as such, it can be learned by rote or it can be used as catalyst by a society that is capable of doing independent thinking. But there is a paradox here that can confuse the observer. It is that a society that has adopted liberal values can still hang on to religion, while a society that has adopted conservative values can treat religion lightly. America is an example of the first; Germany an example of the second. History plays a big role here but I shall not get into it at this time.

What I shall take up is the role that religion plays in the Muslim countries. It happened that two Arab speaking countries, Algeria and Egypt, have rejected the idea of a Muslim based form of government. Other Arab governments, including the Hashemite Kingdom (Jordan) and the Hejaz (Saudi Arabia,) have given their blessings to that rejection. At the same time, however, you have non-Arab Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, entities of the Caucasus and Turkey adhere to that religion more fanatically than the Arabs themselves. Why?

The answer to that question is deceptively simple. Islam is learned by studying the Koran in Arabic, its original language. The people who are not born with Arabic as their language, learn the Koran by rote. What they learn becomes the dogma they feel inadequate to question even if they are allowed to do so. As to the Arabs, the Koran may contain the principles of their religion, but it is also a set of ideas that can be interpreted by the beholder. In fact, depending on how much education an individual has, the Arabs do spend time debating each other's interpretation of the Koran. They do so privately, and they do it publicly on television and through the other media.

Thus, we are faced with a situation in which conservative Saudi Arabia has welcomed Egypt's rejection of an Islamic form of government while more liberal minded Turkey has condemned Egypt's choice.

What writers such as Walsh do is speculate about what the rival generals may or may not do to each other but neglect to take into consideration what ordinary people will do in response.

New America Bowing to Old America

There exist American commentators who say that the world was changed on September 11, 2001 because America was changed on that day by the attack that took place on its soil. Now, twelve years later, voices are rising to make the point that America and the world have been changing since January of 2009 as a result of Barack Obama becoming President of the United States.

Two things are typically American in this give and take. First, the Americans have always talked, and they continue to talk about the world as if it were a satellite that is revolving around Planet America. Second, when something goes wrong, the Americans never see the fault as being their own. And this is because in their eyes, America is the land of “exceptional” things. Thus, the fault must be that of the foreigners who take advantage of it, seeing its President – whomever he may be at the time – as failing to run the nation the way it should be run. The result of this mentality is that structural changes are hard to bring about in America especially if they are necessitated by a world that is evolving on its own rather than revolve around Planet America.

But the reality is that heavyweight America; the one towards which many things used to gravitate in the old days, is no longer the only heavyweight nation in the world today. This may come as a surprise to the generation that grew up when America was not only a heavy planet but a full-fledged star shining brightly in a universe that was theirs to explore and to conquer. But to those of us who came of age in the decade of the 1950s, and began to ask questions about the world, we still remember the debates that started even a decade earlier predicting that the day will come when the world will have evolved into a multi-polar planet. It was said that in this world, America will only be one of the poles, not the only pole. As we grew up, we saw the world move in that direction with every passing decade without ever looking back at a unipolar planet.

However, if there must be a moment we can call demarcation line to symbolize the change in America's place in the world, that moment should be the 2008 spectacle of the Secretary of the Treasury falling to his knees in front of the Speaker of the House begging her to let pass legislation allowing the bailout of America's financial institutions. This is the image which best represents the new America; the one that genuflected in front of the old America begging it to invoke its old good name, and call on the goodwill of the world to bail it out as it was about to implode into a pile of economic junk.

What we need to understand is that this moment did not come about spontaneously but was in the making since right after World War II. While acknowledging that no one can tell how history would have evolved if this incident had not taken place, or if that idea was not pursued in the past, I posit that the world would be different today if Winston Churchill had not persuaded the Americans to trigger the Cold War era by taking an adversarial stance with regard to the Soviet Union. I cannot help but think that what happened under Yeltsin would have happened four decades earlier under Khrushchev had it not been for Churchill's interference.

And this brings us to an article that was written by Daniel Pipes. It has the title: “Obama's Foreign-Policy Fiasco” and the subtitle: “This administration has helped make us irrelevant in the Middle East.” It was published on August 23, 2013 in National Review Online. The word irrelevant – seen in the subtitle – remains important because it represents a great deal in the context of this discussion. Like Shamir's: “Zey know nossing about za damacarcy” which turned America into a Middle Eastern joke, it was Sharon's: “Yasser Arafat is irrelevant” that made America itself irrelevant. It happened first in the Middle East, then happened again in the rest of the world when people like Daniel Pipes and John Bolton started to describe the United Nations as irrelevant.

For these reasons, it should not come as a shock to see Pipes lament that America is no longer what it used to be when: “America's economic size, technological edge, military prowess, and basic decency meant that … the U.S. counted as much as or more than any other state.” All this being evident, his observation is irrefutable. But where the writer goes wrong is when he applies his Jewish mentality in addition to his American mentality to analyzing the situation and to drawing conclusions.

His American mentality leads him to conclude that America's troubles were caused by President Barack Obama under whose leadership “the United States has slid into shocking irrelevance in the Middle East.” He expands on that by saying that even the weakness and indifference of Carter and Clinton yielded better results than the inconsistency, incompetence, and inaction of Obama. He would have preferred to see strong and active presidents like Ronald Reagan who helped speed up the collapse of the Soviet Union, and George W. Bush who invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

As to his Jewish mentality, it leads him to make false comparisons, a trait that causes him and many other Jewish writers to draw false conclusions. In the context of this discussion, he says that Obama behaves as if America were as small as Belgium, especially when it comes to casting votes at the UN. He goes on to say that this makes America “lead from behind.” But what this sort of talk does to the readers is that it prompts them to ask questions such as: Do all small nations vote one way, and all big nations vote the opposite way? Moreover, each time that America casts a veto against a resolution that favors Palestine, does it do so because Belgium has shown it the way? If so, is he suggesting this should stop?

Another mind boggling comparison that Pipes, the Jew makes involves Qatar – a nation that is 1400 times smaller than America. He chides Obama for not doing what the emirs of Doha do, which is to help the rebels in Syria instead of dithering. Would it be following from the front if Obama followed the emirs of Doha? Pipes does not answer this question but gives another example: “They provide billions to the new leadership in Egypt, he stumbles over himself.” A little later, he expands on that thought with the following: “The 1.5 billion in annual U.S. aid to Egypt suddenly looks paltry in comparison with the $12 billion from three Persian Gulf countries.” Does that mean he wants Obama to compete with the Gulf States in the game of throwing money at Egypt?” I'm sure some people would find this idea a delicious one.

That is Jewish mentality; there is no doubt about it, but there is something even more Jewish than that. It is that Pipes again chides Obama for pursuing “delusions of an Israeli-Palestinian 'peace process' … in a diplomatic initiative that almost no one believes will end the Arab-Israeli conflict.” And this is the point where you realize that the writer does not see Obama as inactive; he sees him as active, alright, but sees him pursuing the wrong priorities. And you realize this is not new to a Jewish propaganda machine that has always advocated: “Give us the tools and we'll do the job” which translates into give us the weapons; give us gobs of money, and we'll slaughter the Palestinians till we finish them off, or they flee Palestine leaving all of it to us.

But if Pipes says hands off the Middle East when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, what is there to be concerned about in that region or anywhere else in the world for that matter? Aha, that's a good question; it is the big one, he seems to be saying. And the first thought he advances in response to it concerns Obamacare which, he says, the President must drop in favor of treating foreign policy not as an afterthought like he does now, but as a juicy matter, the way he treats the American issues.

This prompts the question: What about foreign policy? And the author gives his answer in a form that carries the preoccupation of Israel and the American Jewish lobby at this time. He writes: “Iran could soon achieve nuclear breakout.” Basically, what this boils down to is that Obama must forget about American issues such as Obamacare, he must forget about the Middle East peace process, and he must concentrate on working to destroy Iran.

Why is that? you ask, and he responds: “America is a force for good … the world needs an assertive United States.” Assertive? you ask. How assertive? And pipes responds by quoting the historian Walter McDougall who said that the American civilization “perturbs the trajectories of all others just by existing.” To this, Pipes adds the lamentation: “there isn't much perturbation these days” and he follows with the hope that “the dismal present [will] be brief in duration.”

And so, we see that the America which could do things just by existing, cannot do them now even by being active. It was inevitable that America's position should change because the rest of the world was catching up with it. But America need not have lost the kind of influence that friends normally maintain with each other. Yet America did lose that, and the reason is now clear. It is that America misbehaved when it started to become active. It was made to act in the wrong direction with the sort of advice that was given by Churchill yesteryear, and the sort of advice that is currently given by the Jewish lobby year after year.

Daniel Pipes prays that the dismal present, as he calls it, be brief. It may well be so but not because America will regain its old aura; he can be certain of that. It will be because things will continue to get worse as long as America will continue to listen to people such as Daniel Pipes, to the officers that make up the Jewish lobby, and to the characters that freelance as unofficial lobbyists for Israel.

And bowing to its past may not save it in the nick of time next time around. Only a change in behavior will.

Watch it; the Mad Men Are Here Again

It used to be said that the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy. Those were the good old days. What you have now in America is a school of thought – if you can call that a school – which says the following: The cure for the ills of armament is more armament. Aside from the local wackos who make up the leadership of the National Rifle Association (the people who want to make America safe by giving every man, woman and child a gun,) we now hear from the self-designated international wackos who want to make the world safe for democracy by firing up a new arms race.

And we have two articles on this day, August 23, 2013 written by such wackos who were kind enough to expand on their theory, and let us see for ourselves how a screwy mind actually works. The first article was written by William Lloyd Stearman under the title: “Why the U.S. Still Needs Nuclear Weapons Superiority” and the subtitle: “I saw firsthand what happened when the Allies thought the Soviets had the strategic advantage.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal. As to the second article, it was written by Clifford D. May under the title: “Realism on Egypt” and the subtitle: “Aid to the military should be conditional.” It was published in National Review Online.

What the two articles have in common is that the authors urge the people on whose behalf they take the liberty to speak, to ramp up the arming of the nation. Stearman speaks for America, and urges its leaders to aim for military superiority. As to Clifford May, he speaks for Israel, and urges America to keep it militarily superior. What is significant is that the two authors say what they say without once mentioning that the response of the potential “enemies” the two countries will arm against, will be to catch up. To do this, they will arm themselves with equal or better weaponry, thus trigger an arms race in the way that things were in the bad old days.

You can see how the mind of a wacko works when you follow the logic that these people employ to arrive at their conclusions. For example, Stearman tells the story of Sputnik that was a game-changer, as he says, because it meant that the Soviets could have intercontinental ballistic missiles. As it turned out, however, the Soviets never bothered building such weapons as proven by the flights of the American U-2 spy planes.

What happened, instead was that Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev was so “emboldened” by the success of Sputnik, he asked for changes in the status of Berlin. Misreading that boldness, the Americans thought there was a missile gap between them and the Soviets. They responded by embarking on a program to fill a gap that did not exist while making concessions that Khrushchev did not take advantage of. Well, instead of seeing this as a reason to avoid an arms race that could annihilate the planet if and when someone will misread someone else's intention, Stearman says we should reignite the nightmare scenario of the bad old days. So I ask: Then do what, William? Love the bomb and learn to live with it? What a wacko idea!

As to the way that the mind of Clifford May works, he begins with the typical Jewish habit of mutilating history. He then builds on it an edifice that is more an optical illusion than it is reality. But having learned that he can no longer get away with too much BS, he plays it safe this time. Talking about the Camp David Accord, look how he articulates the core of his current theory: “Egyptian generals realize that a conflict with the Jewish state would end in their defeat and humiliation … It this thesis is correct, peace can be preserved by sharpening Israel's qualitative military edge.” As you can see, he first asserts: “generals realize” but then qualifies: “If this is correct.”

What is noticeable here is that for the past 30 years or so, the Jewish propaganda machine was telling the American Congress that the litmus test the Egyptian government must pass is the country's willingness to adhere to the Camp David Accord. But now, Clifford May says: Who cares about that Accord; just give Israel superior weapons, and that will keep the peace because the Egyptians who kicked Israel out of the Sinai in 1973, may or may not now realize they can be defeated and humiliated.

Nothing here about the Egyptian response to Israel's escalation of the arms race. And this is because, like William Stearman, Clifford May is one of the mad men who are trying to influence our era.

The Problem That Is Complaining About Itself

What an irony! At the very moment that former President Mubarak is let out of jail and sent to hospital, Victor Davis Hanson publishes “America the trivial” in National Review Online this day, August 22, 2013. The article also comes under the subtitle: “The Kardashians and Anthony Weiner are deemed more worth of attention than what affects the security and prosperity of our nation.” The irony is that if triviality is a problem in the eyes of Hanson, he ought to look at his contribution to it. One such contribution being that he made it a habit to call Mubarak a kleptomaniac when the man was freed precisely because he proved to be innocent of that charge.

And I bet that Hanson does not even know how it is that he picked up that bad habit, and why it is that it represents the core of the problem he complains about. Well, let me say this: It all started when the rabbis set out to “educate” the Americans as to what the Jews want them to grow up and become. To help initiate himself, he may look at the writings of Tom Friedman who never drops the habit of perpetuating the false notion that half the Egyptian women are illiterate. Hanson may even go further than that and notice that anyone writing about Egypt these days will dutifully mention that a certain percentage of the population lives in poverty as if this were a phenomenon unique to that country.

In a similar fashion, the rabbis and the individuals who followed them at the educational lectern used to cry out shorthand type locutions such as words, terms and expressions in the order of: “Soviet built Migs” and “guns from Red China,” considered to be verbal icons that supposedly represented a whole load of meanings. These were meanings that the orator no longer had to spell out in detail because those in the audience were expected to know about them and substitute them in their own heads for the locution.

Such approach for addressing the public was not something that the rabbis invented on the spot. It was something for which they staged countless dry runs; something they continually rehearsed everywhere they went on the planet – and did so for hundreds if not thousands of years. It has always been their way to acquire the power in those places where they had none or had little of it. The approach is a trick called acquiring leverage, which means you change the culture in which you find yourself. And there lies the problem for America; that which Hanson is complaining about not knowing what it is he is complaining about. What follows may help him see that.

Give leverage or the illusion of it to a culture that has become responsive to communication that does not rise above the triviality of bumper sticker slogans, and you will have created a lump of flesh that is infested with flesh eating disease. This is what the American culture has become; it is how it responds to internal and external events, and why the nations of the world increasingly choose to distance themselves from it … not something that the current president or any of his predecessors have done or failed to do as suggested by Hanson.

What differentiates human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom is that we can communicate in complex ideas which are also called abstract concepts. Whereas you can have a long conversation with a human being as to the validity of the saying: “If speech is made of silver, silence is made of gold,” you can only shout “quiet” at a barking dog, having trained it or conditioned it to stop barking when it hears you utter that word.

And a culture in which the children grow up with attention spans that become shorter with every generation, the human ability they are born with to think in concepts, is gradually replaced with poorer substitutes. Thus, each successive offspring will tend to replace the tradition of mulling over and responding to reasoned ideas, with the habit of responding to commands that do not exceed in length the slogan of a bumper sticker. From the human beings that were given to the tradition of intellectual exchange, they are now only capable of signaling to each other their most basic instincts.

And when Hanson utters Mubarak the kleptomaniac, he tells the audience to open the floodgate of hatred not only for Mubarak but for all of Egypt, all Egyptians, all Arabs and all Muslims. He thus acquires leverage, and uses that to acquire still more leverage believing that the losers in this zero-sum game are the Arabs and the Muslims but in fact, are none other than the American people, especially the young among them who will grow up with a short attention span of the bumper sticker variety.

When, in addition to their handicap, you instruct people of such low caliber that they must have tools to use as leverage, you set them for a letdown if not a series of defeats and the ultimate self-annihilation. This will happen because to have leverage is to have a tool that can be used to pressure someone, forcing them to do what you want them to do. But leverage in the hand of someone that can only operate at the superficial level of the slogan, becomes a double-edged instrument because that someone will lack the means to assess the abilities of his opponents, and will confront them at a time when they have the upper hand. The accumulation of bad moves in this vein will weigh heavily on him. Taken to an extreme, the habit will crush him under its weight.

This is what is happening to America now; it has nothing to do with the performance of successive American presidents, and everything to do with the teachings of the early rabbis and the people who followed in their footsteps, including people like Victor Hanson who don't even know why they are the way they are.

While it may be argued that the short attention span exhibited by children at an early age tends to disappear as they grow older, it cannot be shown that the tendency is universal. More importantly, it can be shown that it does leave a residue even among the people who seem to develop a normal attention span at an older age. To wit, Victor Hanson, Tom Friedman and all those who throw verbal icons that supposedly represent great ideas but are nothing more than loads of rubbish.

Hanson can do himself and the American people a big favor by dropping what is trivial, and sticking with what is real in American affairs and world affairs.

The Twisted World of Bolton and Abrams

John Bolton and Elliott Abrams are having a debate on this day, August 21, 2013 on the pages of the Wall Street Journal. The Bolton article comes under the title: “The U.S. Should Back the Army” and the subtitle: “If the Muslim Brotherhood wins, say goodbye to the peace treaty with Israel and stability in Sinai.” The Elliott Abrams article comes under the title: “Cutting Off Aid Honors American Values and Law” and the subtitle: “By contravening U.S. Law, the Obama administration is sending a dangerous message to Gen. Sisi.”

Make no mistake about it; both men are working for the supremacy of Jews in world affairs, and for the glory of Israel. To them, America is but the latest tool that the Jews are using to attain their goal. But there is a difference in the approach that each of them is taking. Bolton who is older and more attuned to the voices of the international community is now a more cautious man, having had several brushes with international operators that did not like his mentality and let him know it. What he wants to do is use American power and prestige to protect Israel without ruffling too many feathers. Abrams on the other hand, remains the “young Turk” who would rape non-Jewish Americans into submission, and then use American power and prestige thus gained to rape the world into submission.

To explain how that works, I have two introductions. The first will serve to clarify not what goes on inside the head of John Bolton – you will have to read his article to see that – but to clarify the situation in the world; one that he sees but does not fully understand. As to the second introduction, it clarifies what goes on inside the head of Elliott Abrams, a man so full of it, it was said about him that if he were a restauranteur and you walked into his restaurant to have a meal, he would cook you a shit pie. And that's what he is doing now.

The following is the introduction to the John Bolton article:

It was inevitable that the geopolitical landscape of the world should change fundamentally around this time in history, that the wave of change should start at the Far East where China and India are situated, and that it should move westward to the Levant and to Africa – both the Northern part of it and the sub-Sahara. The reason for the change is that a second industrial revolution was starting to take place; the trouble being that its nature and impact were misunderstood.

When in the decade of the 1950s breakthroughs were made in solid state technology (the transistor) and in biology (the DNA's double helix,) a new industrial revolution was in the offing. It took roots as predicted, and gave rise to new industries that were collectively called the second Industrial Revolution. This was the correct thing to do, but something was neglected at first, and was later misunderstood. It was the fact that the part of the world which did not participate in the first Industrial Revolution was going to be the main beneficiary of the second revolution, and no one saw the impact that this will have on the geopolitical landscape of the world.

In the meantime, the underdeveloped parts of the world as they were called, were going to undergo the same tectonic shifts in terms of social attitudes, culture, religion, philosophy and what have you as did the European nations at the dawn of the first Industrial Revolution. The shifts were not going to be exact replicas of what transpired in Europe, but the forces moving them would be the same. And lest we forget, it must be said that Central and South America started to undergo the same sort of shifts but having a smaller impact on the world than the Afro-Asian block.

And when you have change of this magnitude coming to millions of people at the same moment, you must expect that friction will occur from time to time causing the rise of disputes that will be resolved violently in some cases. Depending on the size and cohesion of the society, the violence will be confined to local places or spill across international borders. They will be limited in scale or will go out of control. This is what is happening in the world today, it is what John Bolton sees, and you will get a sense of his interpretation of what he sees when you read his article. I would pay particular attention to the first paragraph where he describes a world that is not evolving but one that is undergoing a catastrophic collapse.

And the following is the introduction to the Elliott Abrams article:

Imagine you're a fly on the wall in a room where Benjamin Netanyahu spends time. He is standing in front of a handful of followers discussing something, and one of the attendees inquires as to what the American reaction will be if the Israelis did this instead of that. Netanyahu looks him in the eye and confidently advises: We do not worry about the Americans; we know how to handle these people. Well, you now fly across the continents and the oceans, and you land in America where things are happening; some of which are moved and spun by the Jewish lobby for the benefit of the Israelis – more specifically for Netanyahu's Likud Party.

It so happens that you get into America at a time when sex scandals fill the air. They involve mostly prominent Jewish personalities that shamelessly seek to remain in power or seek to regain power. It all happens at a time when an Israeli President was convicted of being a serial sexual offender. As well, a prominent Jew is caught in Europe running an international prostitution ring. As to America, it comes to light that the American military is a place where male and female recruits are used by their superiors as sex slaves no different from the monsters that kidnap children and keep them as sex slaves in their basements for decades.

Thus, being the fly that heard Netanyahu say he knows how to handle the Americans, you wonder how he will handle this situation. To find out, you land on many walls – including one at AIPAC, the most involved of the Jewish organizations working on behalf of Israel. You gather information from all those places about something that will happen on a day when the President of the United States will be giving a news conference.

You go to that event, and despite all the sex scandals that have been exploding in Israel, Europe and America, a Jewish plant masquerading as journalist asks the President to comment about a bunch of kids in Egypt who – more than two years ago – groped a girl. They did not rape her in hiding in some basement but groped her in public in the heat and the mad moments of a revolution. And yet, here is the question being asked of the American President who responds to it instead of asking security to throw the planted animal out of the conference. And the result is that the Jewish controlled media in America and elsewhere use the occasion to splash the message in big headlines that sexual harassment is rampant in Egypt.

And in the same way that the incident at the press conference was organized, Elliott Abrams and people like him get paid real American dollars to organize all sorts of incidents and events that abuse the media, the international encounters where America gets involved, and more importantly what happens in the Congress with regard to the laws which are passed in the middle of the night to serve Israel at the expense of America.

And one of these laws is mentioned in the article as Section 508 of the Foreign Assistance Act. To have it, they blackmailed an aging senator who was up for reelection, and forced him to move it through the Congress. Read the article and see how Abrams uses it to tie the hands of America, shaft the American people and tell the world that the superpower has become the private washroom of Jews, and that he has the key.

American Draculas Craving Coptic Blood

On August 19, 2013, three articles were published in National Review Online with regard to the subject of Christians in Egypt. This happened despite the fact that the heads of the three largest Christian communities in that country – The Coptic, the Catholic and the Anglican – told the world, especially the Americans, to mind their own idiotic business, and to keep their dripping noses out of Egyptian affairs.

To be certain, there is an ongoing revolution in Egypt; it has been ongoing for more than two and a half years during which time close to 3,000 people have died. Out of these, no more than 30 were Christian, a number that represents only 1 percent of the fallen victims in a population that is 10 percent Christian. Thus, for some people and some organizations in America to come out and express the wish to get involved, says only one thing. It says that they crave for more Christian blood to be shed because this is how they will benefit from the situation. And no matter what vehicle any of them will use to gain something, their wishes and their actions must be interpreted as craving the blood of Egypt's Christians.

This is the insight you gain when you read: “Coptic Kristallnacht” by Andrew Doran, an article that also came under the subtitle: “The Muslim Brotherhood is terrorizing Egypt, and Christians are a particular target.” What prompted Doran to write this article is a correspondence he had with a Christian in Egypt who said: “Copts had a big role in this revolution … The Christians fasted with the Muslims during Ramadan. It was very good. It brought unity.” If this were not enough to upset a Dracula hoping for disunity and the shedding of Coptic blood, consider the following: “The revolution had broader popular and institutional support, including from the military, the police, the judiciary, the Muslim clerics of Al Azhar Mosque, and the Coptic Orthodox Church. More to the point, the 2013 revolution was peaceful.” This says that if you are a Doran, and you read about a peaceful revolution, you fantasize about a violent Kristallnacht, and share your fantasy with the editor at National Review Online.

And you do not stop here. You run wild with your imagination, and satisfy your thirst for blood by transposing on the current situation – which you called peaceful – a historical situation that was said to be violent. How violent? Well, here is how Doran imagines it to have been: “The ... attacks against the Christians in Egypt are reminiscent of Kristallnacht in Germany in 1938, when Nazi paramilitaries ... murdered scores of Jews in a disturbing foreshadowing of the fate of European Jews over the next few years.” But that's not what your Christian correspondent in Egypt was saying, Andrew. What's wrong with your head? Need a psychiatrist or something?

Doran goes on to talk about the Final Solution, but that's not how his Egyptian correspondent sees the matter evolving. Rather, it is this: “You have fought to get democracy as you have it, we are fighting for our own democracy. That is what you are seeing now.” And this is the poignant reminder that seems to have hit Doran like a bolt of lightning, prompting him to acknowledge: “If freedom and stability are restored to Egypt, it will be despite, not because of, the West.” To which I say amen, and further advise this “Westerner” that he should mind his own idiotic business, and keep his dripping nose out of Egyptian affairs.

And this brings us to the David French article that came under the title: “Not one More Plane, Not One More tank. Not One More Dollar, Until Egypt's Christians Are protected.” The first thing this author does is urge his readers to read Andrew Doran's article about Kristallnacht. By this, he means to say he too is having the same fantasies as Doran. This done, he does not need to rehash the fantasies, but goes beyond them and offers a solution. To this end, he lists the inventory that makes up the strength of the Egyptian military.

Now you ask: Why would David French do that? And the answer is simple. He is responding to something that came up in the Doran article. More specifically this part: “The revolution had broader popular and institutional support, including from the military, the police, the judiciary, the Muslim clerics of Al Azhar Mosque, and the Coptic Orthodox Church. More to the point, the 2013 revolution was peaceful.”

Did you notice the part where the military is mentioned? That's what is protecting all Egyptians, including the Christians. Thus, if you weaken the military, the Christians along with the others, will be without protection – and that's what should not happen, says David French. Is this an illogical stance? Of course it is. But he is not smart enough to recognize it as such. Worse, when told about it, it does not bother him that he blundered. What's important to him is that Egypt remains defenseless so that it can be attacked. And when this happens, blood will flow like a river, and all the Draculas like him will assemble to drink their most favored liquid: Christian blood.

He goes on to recommend: “Not one scintilla of aid until the Egyptian military [stops] this persecution in its tracks, protecting the most basic human rights of its Christian citizens.” But that's what is happening now, and if the military is weakened, it will not be able to continue doing so. Yes Sir, says David French, now drooling at the mouth thinking of all the Christian blood he may soon be licking. And so, he goes beyond Doran's fantasy, and formulates his own. It is this: “The crisis could escalate quickly to Balkan- or Syrian-level brutality and religious cleansing.” Whoa! There is enough here to make a Dracula come out of his crypt even in daylight.

And this brings us to the Nina Shea article: “Egypt's Christians Are facing a Jihad” about which I am not going to waste a minute of my time except to say that I previously wrote about this woman. Given the low quality of her presentations, and the uselessness of the outfit she represents, she should perhaps try to serve humanity by looking after the unfortunate people who live in a lepers colony or something. Maybe she can become the new Mother Theresa.

Strength of the Egyptian Economy

I often wrote that the Egyptian economy was sturdy; I even hinted at the reason why this was the case when I mentioned that the economy was diversified, but I never said why it came to be constructed that way. Well, the time has come to discuss this aspect of the Egyptian economy.

I choose to do so at this time because there is talk about organizing sanctions against Egypt, having done the rain dance around it, and calling on the gods of doom and gloom to have that economy, collapse or melt down or implode or whatever adjective the sick minds came up with to describe a burning desire to see horror of biblical dimensions descend on Egypt.

The good news for those sickos is that economic sanctions will hurt however minimal the pain will be. The bad news for them is that in return for the small pain, the economy will make big gains. In fact, this is what happened to Egypt in the years between the mid-1950s and the end of the 1970s when the Europeans – led by Britain and France, then joined at a later date by the United States – organized economic sanctions against Egypt. The British were mad because the Egyptians had nationalized the Suez Canal, the French were mad because Egypt was backing the independence of Algeria, and the Americans were mad because the Jews told them to get mad even if no one could think up a reason why America should be mad at Egypt.

And when those sanctions began to bite, the trend that was followed by the Egyptian economy could not be sustained, and had to change. As it turned out, this was a change for the better; a move that can be duplicated at this time should new sanctions be organized against Egypt. To see what happened here, it must be understood that when the colonial powers could no longer maintain colonies by military occupation, they embarked on a different kind of colonial domination – one that later came to be called economic colonialism.

The principles employed were simple. Rather than gather or extract the natural resources of the underdeveloped countries to send for processing in the advanced economies of the colonial powers, they will from now on be processed on site by local, unskilled and cheap labor using machines made in the advanced economies. The semi-processed or fully-processed goods will then be sold cheaply to the former colonies, and paid for with expensive machines, spare parts and training for the unskilled labor. Where necessary, the former colonial powers will also provide supervisory, maintenance and managerial personnel – at a price, of course.

In time, that principle was infused into the philosophical approaches that were adopted by such financial institutions as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The result has been that the countries of Latin America and those of Asia that were not pampered by Britain or America for political reasons, found themselves heavily dependent on export to keep their economies going. In return, they had the illusion of scoring a high standard of living when in reality the poor – who could at least eat in the old days – could no longer buy enough food to sustain them, while the wealthy who worked for and traded with foreigners were accumulating grotesque amounts of money they sent abroad.

And this is the fate that Egypt has escaped when the economic sanctions were imposed on it. Instead of relying on export and the illusion of a high standard of living that “creative” accounting and dishonest financing will paint for you, the country looked inward, took stock of its human talent and natural resources, and forged a policy of self-sufficiency where possible. The result has been that the economy was forced to mimic the organic natural development and growth it was starting to have when it became the second nation after Britain to have a railway, thus participating early on in the Industrial Revolution.

But what happened after that were events that thwarted Egypt's progress, and kept it from continuing on the path of industrialization. It now lags behind its European counterparts but its economy is as sturdy as those that took advantage of the early years of the Industrial Revolution by the fact that it was forced by sanctions to relive the early moments of organic growth rather than adopt the illusion of a high standard of living by fake entries into dishonest financial ledgers.

By all means, America, go ahead and make Egypt's day. You will be laughed at and thanked for it when you and your Jewish masters will fall flat on your faces.

A Sunday of Self-Perpetuating Ignorance

This is Sunday afternoon, August 18, 2013. I listened to a number of the pundits who normally hit the Sunday morning television shows to pontificate on the issues of the week. This time the central issue was Egypt, and if there is one thing I can say about the performance of the participants, it is that they have demonstrated how ignorance goes about perpetuating itself when left in the hands of ignoramuses.

Despite the fact that the hands were many, they all played one and the same tune as if the orchestra was made not of one maestro conducting several musicians, but made one lone bugle responding to the command of several maestros. And the remarkable thing was that the hands were so well synchronized, they looked like the limbs of one and the same organism. In fact, they were the tentacles of one and the same monster. Thus, in the end, we had one monster playing one tune that was conducted by several pundits, all masquerading as maestros in their field.

As if they were clones of each other, one pundit after the other opened the mouth and played the same tune. It was to the effect that the demise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt will force the group to go underground and resume the terrorist activities it relinquished sometime ago. The talkers based their view on the fact that al-Qaeda had argued that no Muslim will ever be allowed to govern via the ballot box, therefore Muslims must seek to govern via the bullet.

It was added that the group has several examples by which to illustrate its point-of-view such as, for example, what happened in Gaza where the Muslims won the election but were marginalized by most of the world, and what happened in Algeria and Egypt where the military in those countries denied the Muslims the victory they won fair and square at the ballot box.

Well, the fact is that this debate took place in Egypt more than a year ago when there seemed to be hesitancy on the part of the military that was governing the country at the time, to announce that the Muslim Brotherhood had won the election. At the end of that debate, the military concluded it would be wise to let Mohammed Morsi of the Brotherhood become President. He did govern Egypt for about a year but then things changed.

It is that the millions of Egyptians who saw the good side of the Brotherhood when it was doing social work – helping the people who needed help – and voted for it, now saw its darker side. Thus, the people who made it possible for Morsi to be President now thought he was not the person they had in mind to lead the country. Since they could not recall him from office – though they asked him to depart voluntarily – the people called on the military that installed him to remove him the same way it removed his predecessor Hosni Mubarak.

The military responded to the wishes of the people so now, the pundits who go on the American talk shows, are repeating the elements of the old Egyptian debate. At the same time, however, the current debate in Egypt has advanced well beyond the old points. The current debate in Egypt is to the effect that there are at least two factions making up the Muslim political body. There is a faction that wants to resort to terrorism to attain power, and there is a faction that wants to continue pursuing its political ambitions via the ballot box.

For this reason, the provisional government and the military have left the door wide open for the latter to join in the peaceful exercise of their political right, thus help in the reconstruction of the country. But the government also made it clear that terrorism will be dealt with harshly because the intention is to root it out permanently. This will now be possible, says the government, because of two trends.

First, having seen what can happen, the entire population will be vigilant and will participate in ridding the country of all extremist tendencies and extreme elements. Second, the Muslims will turn on each other, and the good guys will help root out the bad guys because they will have the entire society on their side.

And when Egypt will have become what its people want it to be, it will engage in a brand new debate that no one can at this time begin to imagine what it will be. But whatever the order of the day will then be, the many-tentacled monster of the American talk shows will be catching up with the new debate, and will advise its American audiences that Egypt is now planning to rid itself of terrorists.

Well, better late than never.