The worldwide Battle for economic Justice

Perhaps the time has come to say loudly what has been taboo till now. It is that the central bankers of the major powers regularly conspire to favor some people over others, and they manipulate the financial systems in such a way as to make these people rich. The bankers do that for the good reason that without such “remedies” the economies tend to stagnate with the nefarious consequences that everyone dreads.

The bankers do not make a distinction between people because of their race, color of skin, religion or what have you. No. The people that the bankers favor are those driven by the entrepreneurial spirit, no matter what they look like. Of course, there is the true entrepreneurial spirit, and there is the fake one … and so, a number of fakes manage to benefit from the bankers' largess when they shouldn't. But this is a price that the bankers are willing to pay to help the economies of the world move forward, grow and renew themselves.

To understand why this is the case, and what the bankers do to make things work, we need to get a sense as to how economies grew before the invention of fiat money. Well, this may come as a shock to some people, but progress was never achieved on this planet without a dose of injustice. The reality is that things do stagnate when everything is placid. They start moving – up or down, in a good direction or a bad one – when someone stirs the pot and causes ripples to form. And this is something that is usually done at someone else's expense.

In the distant past, powerful men or groups of them pushed societies out of their lethargy by exploiting the people they looted or enslaved. Later, they offered the people they drafted into their cause a level of personal security, and a way – however modest it may have been – to feed their families. They asked in return for the loyalty and hard work of their “subjects.” Then came the idea of employing people for wages, a development that gave birth to the principle of an exchange between the labor of the workers and the compensation of the employers … with the possibility of negotiation between the two.

With the rise of the unions and the labor laws to protect the workers from exploitation, the employers who are true entrepreneurs, found themselves at such a disadvantage, they lost the appetite to make moves such as the one undertaken by Henry Ford when he decided, on his own, to pay his worker enough so that they may buy what they produce. Worse, many entrepreneurs saw no point in expanding their businesses beyond the ability to make a decent living … and be happy with that. The trouble is that when a culture reaches this point, and sees the attitude spread massively throughout society, it is ready to descend into the kind of stagnation that has kept many ancient cultures in a permanent state of placidity.

But how do individuals who may be endowed with the true entrepreneurial spirit know it is worth taking a risk, and forge ahead with new ideas? They do it by comparing their current state with the promise of what they might become if they took the risk. If what they have now assures them a steady existence and no risk of falling back, most will prefer it to the promise of a higher level of existence but with the risk of losing everything and getting back to square one. Well, the central bankers found a way to make these people take the risk, and not worry about getting back to square one.

This is what the bankers did. They, in effect, told the entrepreneurs: If you are already rich and have properties, go ahead and bundle those properties into commercial papers. We, the central banks, will buy these papers and give you the cash you can invest in high growth areas of the world, or deposit with us for a modest return. And while this is going on, the money supply will increase with none of it going to the rest of society. The move will automatically make you wealthier than before without you having to take any unnecessary risk. So now, you should be able to develop the appetite for taking a limited amount of calculated risk.

America and China did that for a while then passed the baton to the Europeans and the Japanese who are now engaged in doing quantitative easing. It is unjust, but it is the only way to get the economies off their placid stagnation mode; to move forward, grow and renew themselves.

Where the experiment will go from here is anyone's guess. But there are things we should watch for because a transformation is coming, and we must be prepared for it.

Already working on a Plan for the Future

Hours before the mid-term elections – sensing that the control of the Senate will pass from the hands of the Democrats to that of the Republicans – the troupes that make-up the fifth column in America working on behalf of the foreign entity that is Israel, began to pave the way for when they will have the two chambers of the legislature put at the exclusive disposal of Israel.

You can see how this is done in the article that was written by Ilan Berman who is vice president of an outfit based in the District of Columbia, calling itself “America Foreign Policy Council.” The article came under the title: “Israel – Wild Card” and the subtitle: “As negotiations with Iran continue, Israel increasingly finds it can no longer rely on the U.S.” It was published on the day of the elections, November 4, 2014 in National Review Online.

Berman establishes in the first few paragraphs of his article that “U.S. – Israeli relations are on the rocks … unquestionably at a new nadir.” And he makes sure to point out that the rupture “is likely much ado about nothing” because the relations between the two countries have ebbed and flowed – never as a result of something that was done by Israel or any of its officials – but always because of “the prevailing political currents in Washington.” In essence, he establishes early on that Israel is rock solid, and that America's Executive Branch is run by a bunch of windbags.

But now that he expects the Executive Branch will be thumped by the loss of the Senate to the Republicans who are reputed to be Israel's stooges, the special relationship between America and Israel will be rejuvenated by the change that is soon to take place in Washington, and the change that will follow “at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue [the White House] over two years hence.”

And here is the thing. Israel is not the only entity that's rock solid in this whole affair, so is the “bipartisan support [for it] in both houses of the Congress, a situation that is unlikely to change.” And there is much that the Congress can do to mitigate the fecklessness of the White House windbags, according to Berman, because the Legislative Branch has the inherent power of the purse; the very thing that “has been harnessed to tremendous effect in aiding Israel.” As well “there is every reason to believe that it will do so again.”

This done, Berman begins to lay out the Jewish-Israeli plan for the future of America and that of the American people; the thing that Viceroy Netanyahu the Bibi (nicknamed rug-pissing dog and chickenshit) has been fantasizing about, but could not realize because the White House has steadfastly displayed American dignity instead of the congressional tendency to embrace political prostitution. And so, at the top of the Jewish-Israeli plan comes the issue of Iran.

What preoccupies the author of the article is the approaching deadline for the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. What worries him is the apparent determination of the Obama Administration to get an agreement. But given the recent developments in the Middle East, there appears to be – at least according to the Wall Street Journal – a movement toward “detente” between America and Iran … which he describes with these words: “All this is deeply worrisome to Israel.”

He goes on to explain: “Since the start … officials in [occupied] Jerusalem have watched closely – and with growing trepidation.” Their preference is that Iran stops enriching uranium altogether, something they call the zero option. But they don't see this happening now, nor do they see a reasonably good deal coming soon enough. Instead, they see a bad deal according to the concessions that have been proffered by Washington.

Otherwise, they see no deal at all, which is just as bad because this will put the Bibi Viceroy of America in a tight position. Unable to “rely on the United States to serve as a steward of its interests in the Middle East,” the castrated Royal of the Kingdom of quacks will have to do something alone … which would be suicide. Unless, of course, the Congress of treasonous prostitutes comes to the rescue and does something with the current White House (or more likely doing it to it) … because this White House will still be in charge of foreign policy for the next two years.

The Priest America will need, not the one to be

Let's put together a parable that will serve as a metaphor. You move into a town in a remote area of the country where natural resources have been discovered. Once sleepy, the town is beginning to boom, and this is good news to you because you're a wholesaler of building materials – products you buy from far away manufacturers and sell to local subcontractors.

But you are also a chemical engineer, and you have a good background in manufacturing. You determine that the natural environment where the town is situated can use the mix of cement you invented sometime ago, and be most effective in certain kinds of buildings. You buy the necessary machines and start manufacturing the cement mix which you sell locally. It amounts to a small percentage of your overall business.

Unknown to you, a carpetbagger has been in town for sometime, and he has been waiting for an opportunity like the one he sees in your advent. He gets a diabolical idea that involves your business but does not tell you about it right away. Instead, he starts throwing parties in which he invites the elected officials and bureaucrats of the town hall. He works on them in subtle and overt ways with the ultimate goal of making them amend the building code. What he has in mind is getting them to mandate the use of your cement mix in every new building.

When he feels they are ready to do just that, he makes use of the legally available methods to gather information on you and your business. Now knowing your strengths and weaknesses, he approaches you with an offer you cannot refuse by putting a generous amount of money on the table for half your business. You take the offer and take him as equal partner. He now puts the pressure on the town bureaucrats and the elected officials to amend the building code. All of a sudden, the business begins to experience a high level of growth.

At first, you do not realize why demand has so increased for your cement mix. After a while, you discover that the subcontractors have been using it where it is not needed. Not only was this a needlessly added expense, it was dangerous because the cement will perform poorly in some places where it is now used. You quietly investigate and succeed at piecing together what really happened. You determine that this has been a devilishly planned scheme, and expertly executed plan by your partner.

You try to have the town hall rescind the amendment that makes the use of your cement mandatory, but find no one willing to listen to you. As you come close to the point when you're about to give up, a building under construction collapses, and you know why it happened. Luckily, no one got hurt this time, but something worse can happen in the future, and you are determined to prevent it from happening. You talk to your lawyer who writes a letter to your partner and to the people at the town hall … putting everyone on notice that they will be responsible for the damages that will result; damages that may include the loss of life.

You break the partnership, the carpetbagger leaves town and things get back to normal. You go on like that for a few years then one day, someone comes knocking at your door. He says he is a subcontractor and he just moved in. Instead of doing only construction work, he wants to enter into partnership with someone like you who has a wholesale business where manufacturing is also done. And he makes an offer you find difficult to refuse.

But something tells you that you have gone through a similar experience before. So you ask him if he knew the partner you had years ago. He says yes, that was his uncle. You jump to your feet and tell the nephew that you will not do business with him no matter what he offers you.

Now, what is this parable about? It is about Bret Stephens that may be viewed as a nephew of the previous charlatans who sold to America the foreign policy bill of goods that broke its back. He is now telling the Americans he has a brand new bill of goods to sell to them. He is doing it in an article that came under the title: “Relearning Republican Foreign Policy” and the subtitle: “America needs to be a policeman, not a priest.” It was published on November 4, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.

No, America does not need to be a policeman or a priest. However, America will need a priest to give it the last rights if it listens to the likes of Bret Stephens ever again.

Desperate, they summon the fifth Column

Throughout America's military involvement in the Middle East at the start of the Twenty First Century, the saying had been that the more the forces of freedom came close to winning the fight, the more the terrorists became desperate, and so responded by intensifying their effort to prevent freedom from establishing itself in that part of the world.

It is difficult to determine how true these sayings were because all that we have to work with is the description of one group telling what the opposing group was feeling, and how it acted on its feelings. Perhaps more time is needed for history to establish exactly what happened then; but lucky for us, we do not need time to understand something similar that is happening now, and happening closer to home.

In the endeavor to resolve the issue of nuclear proliferation, the Republic of Iran has been negotiating with a group of nations headed by the United States of America where the two camps have been at it for a while. And it so happens that a deadline was set for reaching an agreement by November 24, 2014, three weeks after the mid-term congressional elections in America, and two months before the inauguration of the new Congress.

The way things stand now is that the American Administration, which is in the hands of the Democratic Party, is optimistic about reaching a deal with Iran. As to the chambers that make up the legislative branch, the House of Representatives has a Republican majority that is taking a hardline against Iran. The expectation is that it will remain in Republican hand after the elections. Things are different in the Senate, however, as it is now in the hands of the Democratic Party but has a chance of turning Republican on November 4. If this happens, the Republicans, now in control of both houses, will be able to do much that will thwart a Democratic deal with Iran, and demand that a different deal be worked out … if that will be possible.

While this may sound like it is purely an American internal matter, it is not. The reality is that the American people lost control of their country by the fact that their system of governance has eroded so much, the nation has come down to a level perilously close to that of a failed state. For reasons which are better left for another discussion, what is internal to America no longer means that the sides to a dispute are local. Something has happened that gave much of the political control in America to an amorphous organization with global reach having names like World Jewry and World Zionism. It gets itself embroiled in all major “local” disputes, tipping the balance in favor of World Jewry and a foreign entity called Israel.

Political control came to that organization via its monopoly of the media. And you can see how the organization plays the game when you review two articles published on the same day, October 30, 2014 in the Washington Times. One article was written by Richard Grenell under the title: “The midterm elections and Iran,” the other by K.T. McFarland under the title: “Desperate for a deal with Iran” and the subtitle: “Obama may form an alliance to get help fighting ISIS.”

Look at the following passage in the Grenell article, and see if you can put together an honest argument that will show this is not a desperate call to prostitution analogous to the escalation of terrorists fighting the forces of freedom: “The chance of stopping the inevitable is to elect a Republican Senate to fight the president. Pro-Israel voters, like evangelical Christians and Jewish voters in North Carolina, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Arkansas, Alaska and Louisiana must realize their votes are crucial. Flipping the Senate to the Republicans may stop the Iran deal. Eastern European Americans should also vote to elect the president's opposition to the Senate.” No, you cannot put together an argument that will show this is anything but a call for a fifth column of prostitutes to rise up and serve a foreign entity by further eroding America's independence.

As to K.T. McFarland, she continues to play the already overplayed Jewish game of giving credit to the Jews by discrediting their opponent. It happens this time that he is Barack Obama, President of the United States. She says this about him: “so far his foreign-policy legacy has been a flop.” She then does something that is also vintage Jewish – she speculates as to what will happen if Obama has it his way. What follows is a condensed reprint of what she wrote in several paragraphs:

“If Mr. Obama is going to stop ISIS without U.S. combat forces, he needs an Iran deal … What might it look like? An American-Iranian alliance satisfy the most pressing needs on both sides. Iran would shore up Iraq's army with their 'boots on the ground' to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria … In exchange, Mr. Obama would lift sanctions … [his] Iran deal will be hailed as a breakthrough. American business will applaud, as will our European allies. Everybody wins … However, the long-term consequences would be devastating to … Israel [that will] be left to fend for itself.” She is saying, in effect; screw America and its allies because there is only one thing that counts on the face of the Earth: Israel.

It is Israel, only Israel and no one but Israel. It is a call to the Grenell fifth column to make sure that Israel continues to enjoy the sacrifices of the American people who have been paying with life, money and their dignity to make the Jew, who never got respect anywhere on this planet in three thousand years, feel like a Rodney Dangerfield that finally got the respect he craves. He will have gotten it by the fact that a superpower was brought to its knees when its locally trained cowardly traitors stabbed it in the heart.

Perhaps Richard Grenell and K.T. McFarland will be made honorary citizens of Israel when this episode will be over.

They love Evil and hate the Good

Matthew Continetti represents many who are like him, and what they all have in common is that they love evil and hate what is good. He shows this tendency with clarity in the article he wrote under the title: “The Coming Détente with Iran” and the subtitle: “Unable to make Iran pro-American, Obama will settle for trying to make America pro-Iranian.” It was published on November 1, 2014 in National Review Online.

Think about it, what would you do to show that something is bad which everyone says is inherently a good thing. The answer is that you would ascribe bad motives to the one striving to implement the good thing. This has been the trick that the Jews employed during half a century, and by which they took effective control of America, turning it into a Jewish plantation. “What counts is the intent,” they said whenever they locked horns with someone. And so, having monopolized the American media and shut everyone out, they ascribed bad motives to the Palestinians, the Arabs, the Muslims, the Russians, the Chinese, the Eastern Europeans, the Latinos, the Africans and the Western Europeans. They are doing it now to America's own President of the Republic.

Writing about the nuclear negotiations with Iran, Continetti says this: “...President Obama, who is looking to establish his legacy as his presidency enters its lame-duck phase.” You see how it works? Now the author does not have to discuss the clauses of a deal that has not been finalized because no matter how good it may turn out to be, it must be rejected because it violates the criterion he set for it as determined by Obama's unacceptable intent. And this, my friend, is no different from the Jewish trick of ascribing to the Palestinians the intent to commit terrorism; a trick that has allowed Israel to commit acts of genocide using American weapons and financing, then be rewarded with more weapons and financing to prepare for the next genocidal orgy.

Knowing how the negotiations with Iran are moving, a spokesman for the White House said: “this is the best opportunity we've had to resolve the Iranian issue diplomatically.” Later, the Secretary of State said: “I am going to express hope.” And so, Continetti who knows not how the negotiations are moving – but having made the point that intent was the criterion by which to judge things – brushes all that aside and responds like this: “And I am going to express fear.”

Yes, fear is the most potent weapon in the arsenal of demagogues. The Jews used it extensively to turn the American public against the individuals and groups they wished to destroy. Continetti is using it against his own President with the aim – actually the self-ascribed intent – of turning Obama into enemy number one in the eyes of the American public. Flabbergasting. Mind blowing. Unbelievably galling. So very Jewish.

He does not stop here. He uses another Jewish trick to tell what it is that he fears. The trick this time is similar to the Jews accusing someone of being antisemitic for saying Israeli lobby instead of Jewish lobby, and accusing him of being antisemitic for saying Jewish lobby instead of Israeli lobby. On his part, Continetti who used to ascribe bad motives to Obama for not recognizing that the so-called Bush surge in Iraq was a good thing, now accuses Obama of harboring motives that rouse fears for doing this: “Obama sees an Iran deal … as his version of the George W. Bush surge: a Hail Mary pass to salvage a legacy.” It is bad motives either way because the game is that of: Heads I win, tails you lose. So dishonest and so very Jewish.

Now, being the professional writer that he is, Matthew Continetti must gather the various elements of his thesis, and put them together in a coherent construct that will show the American public how evil their President has been. Look at the following and be shocked: “The desire for détente with Iran. For comity and diplomatic accord between longtime enemies, for a new Middle East in which security is left to regional stakeholders, and Shiites and Sunni alike see the United States as “evenhanded” in its treatment of Israelis and Palestinians.” All this goodness; so bloody shocking!

This man, Barack Obama must now be dressed like a woman, taken to the town square and stoned to death by all those who never committed a sin in this life or the previous one, and all those who committed every possible sin in this life, and plan to do the same in their future incarnations.

In the meantime, Continetti counts on what he calls the X factor to make evil desirable again, and make the good undesirable. He counts on the Supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei to thwart the upcoming deal, thus put an end to the idea of reconciling America and Iran. That lovely Ayatollah, Matthew can't wait to kiss his ass.

Forbes hates Egypt like Fox hates Obama

I see four kinds of hate: legitimate, convenient, irrational and dogmatic. (1) If a guy rapes your daughter and kills her, you will hate him, and this is legitimate. (2) If a media organization – whose policy is to attack an opposing point of view – hires you, and you adopt that same posture, the hate you express will be of the convenient kind. (3) If every time you do not feel well, you attribute your condition to someone that is trying to kill you, your fear is irrational, and so is the hate you express towards that someone. (4) If you grow-up or stay long enough in an environment where those who surround you live by the hate they express toward someone or something, you will adopt their hatred. You may not know why you hate; you just hate as a matter of dogma.

An example of what looks like gratuitous hatred towards Egypt is an article that was written by Christopher Coats under the title: “Sinai Instability Remains A Hurdle For Egypt's Energy Recovery,” published in the Forbes online magazine on October 30, 2014. You will wonder at first if this is convenient hate or dogmatic hate, and so you will watch the magazine, especially this writer, and discover that the hate they express for Egypt is so deeply rooted and so unexplainable, it can only be dogmatic. This also tells you it is something that has been going on for a long time, and very few who are associated with the magazine today can tell you when or how the engine of hate was installed in that institution. They hate mindlessly because it is the thing to do.

To get an idea how else Christopher Coats could have written that article as well as a number of articles he wrote previously on Egypt, the reader may wish to consult a piece that was written by Elizabeth MacBride for the website of CNBC. It came under the title: “While we weren't looking, an Arab economy took off,” published on October 31, 2014. She elaborates on that theme by stating: “A year ago, Egypt's economy had been crushed by political turmoil … This fall, a far different picture is emerging as the country makes a surprisingly quick – and in the West, largely unnoticed – recovery.”

She says that while we weren't looking, Egypt's economy was making a recovery. But when you read the old Coats articles, you'll find that he was looking, and you'll determine that he understood the significance of what he was seeing. He saw an Egypt that was getting back on its feet, but because this went against everything he had hoped for, he described not what he was seeing but what he wished he was seeing.

In fact, even in his latest article, Coats has adopted the well known trick devised by the Jewish hate machine to distort reality while appearing to be telling a straightforward story. The trick consists of reporting on a current event, mix it with negative opinion, dive into history, scrape the bottom of the barrel, and cram into one paragraph similar events you picked up from the past. For example, if a train accident happens in Egypt, the Jewish controlled media will report it not only as a news event but also an opinion to the effect that Egypt has a decrepit rail system. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant at this point.

What is more relevant is that the on-the-spot editorial writers will go back decades, fetch the handful of rail accidents that happened in that country, and list them back to back in a single paragraph for maximum emotional impact. To someone living in North America where hardly a week goes by without seeing a rail accident or two which are then reported as news events free of negative commentary, the treatment of Egypt says a great deal not about rail travel in Egypt; rather, it tells the story of a Jewish hate machine that is running a macabre show called modern American journalism.

And in that same sickly spirit, Christopher Coats goes back in history from where he fetches the bad old incidents that happened to the Egyptian economy, and crams them into a couple of paragraphs. He then lists the recent projects that were undertaken – solid steps that herald the good times ahead. But he quickly ends the article with the following gruesome suggestion; one that is aimed at the businesses intending to invest in Egypt: “However, as security continues to be an issue for the entire country, the presence of foreign firms may be more difficult to ensure.” He remains sick by hate infestation to the last word.

As to Elizabeth MacBride, she does not hide the fact that a few problems remain, and in need of being ironed out. But she transits to the next tranche of her description of Egypt with this: “Though major challenges remain, investment is flowing into the country again. The IMF forecasts healthy GDP growth next year.” She goes on to write about the expansion of the Suez Canal, and then adds this: “the rebound is coming in sectors including energy, infrastructure and health care.”

She goes on: “The technology sector is growing too ... a tech campus and accelerator that houses 85 start-ups [where] News Corp purchased one, and Samsung just invested in another.” Unlike the way that Christopher Coats ended his article, Elizabeth MacBride ends her article on a bright note where she profiles the start-up of a woman named Yasmin El-Mehairy, creator of SuperMama.

Says MacBride, with a team that is made mostly of women, and after a year of relative stability, the company whose offices overlook Tahrir Square is growing again: “Now SuperMama has 1.35 million monthly visitors, a staff of 14, and is operating on a break-even basis.” El-Mehairy wrote to her investors: “we survived the hardest time and we're growing. Our team is as dedicated and enthusiastic as ever.”

These are the daughters of Nefertiti, Hatsheput and Cleopatra. The chances are good they will build a durable technological temple for Egypt – one that will live for thousands of years.

And while all this is unfolding in Egypt, Fox News in America uses its professed hatred of Obama to keep hammering at the old American value system, aiming to destroy it so as to install a new system dedicated exclusively to serving Israel and the Jewish causes.

Whose Country is it anyway?

A funny thing is happening in America these days where every John Doe and his cousin – having time on their hand, and nothing better to do – decide to spend their idle days speculating about Egypt. Even though publications abound (translated from Arabic into English or written in English) as to where the people of Egypt want to go, and how they have decided to get there, the American speculators keep sprouting theories that have no roots in reality, but make sense only to them, to their cousins and to the other John Does out there.

The latest to try his hands at dissecting Egypt's recent history is Fareed Zakaria who wrote an article about the subject under the title: “Why democracy took root in Tunisia and not Egypt,” published on October 30, 2014 in the Washington Post. Like most of those who have ventured in this field, the author is basing his judgment not on the comparison between what the people of Egypt want, and what has been achieved by the revolution but – get this now – what a dead American named Samuel Huntington wanted long ago, and what he, Fareed Zakaria, perceives as being the achievements – or lack of them – of the Egyptian revolution.

In fact, Zakaria uses the Huntington yardstick to declare that the Tunisian revolution has so far been a success with the caveat that: “it may be too soon to celebrate.” He explains: “The government is battling militants at home. Tunisia is also [the] biggest exporter of fighters to join the Islamic State.” Despite all of this, he uses Tunisia as the yardstick by which to determine if Egypt had passed the test of the dead American. And surprise, surprise, he finds that Egypt has been an “abysmal” failure. What else could have come from the Washington Post or CNN?

To elaborate on his point, Zakaria takes a couple of paragraphs to compare the history of the two revolutions as well as the commentaries that were made by people who – like him – know little or nothing of what they talk about when they talk about Egypt. He then tells about a book that was written by Tarek Masoud who, unlike the others, seems to know what he is talking about when he talks about Egypt. Masoud suggests that the outcomes in Tunisia and Egypt have more to do “with deep differences in those countries' political environments” than with anything else.

But despite the fact that Masoud wrote a book on the subject, all that Zakaria saw fit to report on the differences between the two environments, is that Egypt had more mosques than civil society whereas Tunisia had more civil society than mosques. But then, as an afterthought, he threw in something that is actually very significant, and placed it between parentheses. It is this: “Tunisia is fortunate in that its army has always been subordinated to civilian authority.”

What he neglected to say is how this privilege, as crucial as it is, came to be. The fact is that Egypt has been at war for centuries … not because it wanted these wars, but because they were brought to it by the big powers of the day. This situation gave the Egyptian army a significance that was never known in Tunisia. Thus, if you brush aside what Samuel Huntington might have wanted for Egypt decades ago, and if you brush aside what Fareed Zakaria might want for Egypt today, you will realize that what counts is what the Egyptian people want. And what they want is the protection of their army from domestic and foreign enemies. Period. End of discussion.

It may be that by the time Zakaria had reached this point in the article, he realized he had lost the argument … not because there was a push back from someone – there was none – but because he wasn't making sense even to himself. And so he felt compelled to seek energy from another dead American named Walter Lippmann. He quotes him as saying: “the endurance of democracy rests upon a 'sufficiently even balance of political power' between government and opposition.” What was the word again? Democracy? And who the hell has the divine right to define democracy? Those who blacklist people for life for saying Egypt is a civilized country? Is this a democracy to love or to fight for, Zakaria?

As long as countries like Tunisia keep sending fighters to wage war in places like the Sinai, the people of Egypt will want their military to do whatever it takes to protect them regardless of what anyone says. And when it comes to the system of governance they want for themselves, the last thing they want is a system that looks anything like the American Congress. Period. End of discussion.