They have fire in the belly. But this is not the fire of
sympathy which ignites in the belly of a human being upon learning of injustice
being committed on a massive scale. Rather, it is the fire of hate which ignites
in the belly of the Jew upon learning that someone other than himself is doing
well.
And when that someone turns out to be the entire country of Egypt , well
then ... it is volcanoes and not just a fire that erupt in the belly of the
Jew. And these volcanoes recreate the desire to see the biblical plagues which,
for nearly four thousand years, have caused the Jews to dream of the day when Egypt will be
hit by unimaginable calamities and be destroyed.
The first time in modern times that the Jews let the
volcanoes of hate erupt in their bellies and spill over into the open, was the
time when the Egyptians built the hydroelectric and reservoir complex at Aswan . The Jews and their
lackeys spent several decades badmouthing the project in ways that demonstrate
they had no knowledge of the technical or the economic aspects of what they
talked about. What they had was an intense desire to see the dam demolished,
and see Egypt
flooded by the reservoir's water; killing millions of people and setting the
country back several decades if not centuries.
The Jews and their underlings are doing it again, now that
Egypt has had a successful economic summit where plans were unveiled concerning
an administrative capital that will be built in the desert, and whose purpose –
among other things – will be to relieve the pressure on Cairo, the current
capital, a city that was originally built for six million people but has grown
to house eighteen million of them.
You can get a taste of that Jewish hate when you read two
articles on the subject – published one each – in the two rags notoriously
known to be unswerving hate-Egypt publications; The Atlantic and the Washington
Post. The Atlantic printed an article by Matt Schiavenzamar under the title: “Egypt 's New Potemkin Capital” and the subtitle
President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has announced plans to replace Cairo
with a new city
built to its east. But the money would be better spent elsewhere.” It appeared
on March 15, 2015. As to the Washington Post, it printed an article by Ishaan
Tharoor under the title: “Egypt 's
strange $45 billion plan to abandon Cairo
as its capital city,” appearing on March 16, 2015.
What the two articles have in common is that they base their
entire analysis and commentaries on the observation that was made by an
Egyptian blogger on Facebook. His name is Khaled Fahmy, and he wondered if it
would not be better to spend the money on improving the life of those who now
live in Cairo ,
and lack some of the amenities enjoyed by the well off. And that was enough for
the Atlantic to flash in big headline the story of ‘Egypt ’s Potemkin Capital,' and
follow it with the assertion that 'the money would be better spent elsewhere.”
And it was enough for the Washington Post to flash in big headline the opinion
that Egypt was strangely
planning to abandon Cairo .
What all those involved in this story are missing is
something that is there, that is obvious and that is jumping out of their own
writing. Look what Matt Schiavenzamar has written: “Appearing at an economic
development conference, President al-Sisi framed the new capital as a major
step forward for his country which has endured decades of economic stagnation.”
And look what Ishaan Tharoor has written: “A website outlining the proposal
hails it as 'the catalyst for an Egyptian renaissance' and a 'momentous
endeavor to provide for the country's sustainable long-term growth.'” Nothing
could be clearer than that.
The truth is that previous governments in Egypt chose to
rely on the welfare of subsidies to alleviate the burden on the poor – which is
what Khaled Fahmy proposes to do more of … and what the Atlantic and the
Washington Post seem to endorse. By contrast, the new Egyptian government has
decided to use the money to rebuild the country, and thus create the openings
that will give the poor a steady job and a steady paycheck rather than give
them cheap food and subsidized fuel.