The Olympics, The CBC And Me

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the CBC as it is better known in Canada, is the biggest and most powerful radio and television network in the country and it is funded with the money of taxpayers some of whom are Arabs of the Christian and Muslim faiths.

It is important to note at the outset that the Canadian character is such that when you are funded with taxpayers money, it does not mean you are accountable to the public but that you are something special. Consequently, you do not develop humility in the face of a public that is your benefactor but develop a complex of superiority to which everyone bows.

Thus, when the CBC sets the tone, everyone follows and he who manages to take control of the CBC takes control of the cultural life in Canada. Well folks, Netanyahu of Israel has managed to take control of the CBC in the same way that he took control of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in England.

The next four paragraphs are excerpts from a book I wrote whose publication was blocked by the notorious Jewish Establishment which works under the direction and reports to no one but to that same Netanyahu.

[Late in the decade of the Nineteen Nineties I moved from Montreal to Oakville where I started a small local newspaper and published in English. I did not bother hooking up to a cable company and I did not try to get in touch with my friends and acquaintances in Montreal. They did not try to track me down either for several years until one day I heard from one of them.]

[This being the year 2004, my friend asked if I was going to watch the Olympics in a few weeks time. I said he should know I am not much of the sports type and he cut me off with "but it’s on the CBC." I said this settles it because I don’t have cable and without cable I don’t get the CBC’s main channel because it’s on the VHF band which gets me only two channels from nearby Hamilton. But what’s the big deal anyway?]

[He said that he learned from an insider and was able to verify that during the live broadcast of the opening ceremonies at least in the past two Olympics, the Jewish masters of the CBC had organized for the network to cut to a commercial at one or two seconds before the entry into the stadium of every Arab team, and to return to the broadcast after the team had gone out of view. He said that when you watch these ceremonies you never realize there are twenty two Arab countries on the planet, not even one Arab country. As far as the CBC is concerned, the Arab countries do not exist. He added that on order from Netanyahu of Israel, they were planning to do it again during the 2004 Olympics. I said, I’ll see what I can do to watch it this year.]

[I arranged for this to happen and watched the opening ceremonies. Lo and behold, the thing unfolded exactly as my friend said it would. There were no Arab countries on this planet according to the CBC. I thought to myself that long before anyone had wiped Israel off the map, the CBC had wiped 22 Arab countries off the Globe, and had been doing it for at least three Olympics.]

My encounters with the CBC are too numerous to mention in their entirety but there is one more encounter I wish to discuss before I go into something else. In 1993 or thereabout, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney wrote me a letter asking that I get involved in the debate concerning the Accord, a project he undertook that was to be voted on in a referendum and whose objective was to bring Quebec into the Canadian Constitution. I responded positively to the request.

But because I was called a loose gun on the deck and a maverick who belongs to no one, I was blacklisted and therefore could not be published. Thus, the folks in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) came up with an ingenious way to use my thoughts and arguments without mentioning my name or giving me credit for the work I did and the insights I generated.

What these folks did was to set up a committee of "Prominent Canadians" who took up my thoughts and arguments, and articulated them as if they were their own. Eventually, the referendum took place and our side lost even though the polls were pointing to a big time success up until a few days before the vote. But the polls changed suddenly and we were hit with a stunning reversal that seemed to come out of the blue.

Now, the reason why I did not object to the arrangement concocted by the folks in the PMO was because "mining" my work by thieves at every level of the Canadian publishing industry had been the story of my life for 25 years prior to that time. At least these guys asked for my permission to rob me, which they said was for the good of the country and I could not say no to that.

Fast forward to a few months later when I received a phone call I had not expected. Prime Minister Mulroney was just about to go on television and announce that he will be resigning before the end of his term so as to give his Party the time to choose a new leader who will run the country for a while before calling a general election. This is how things are done in the British-style parliamentary system such as we adhere to in Canada.

The caller did not tell me who he was but asked if I wanted to join a comedic group called: "Just For Laughs." I responded with a question of my own: "What should I do?" He said someone will call me and tell me what to do. We both hung up. I thought this was my reward for participating in the effort to keep Canada united. And since the group in question was associated with the CBC, I thought that finally the blacklisting of me was going to be lifted.

Alas, nothing of the sort happened because it is now fifteen years later and that phone call has not come yet. I learned in the interim that a debate ensued in the PMO behind Mr. Mulroney’s back as to what to do with me. A "council" representing the Jewish Establishment at first refused to reward me but then relented and settled on the comedic group because they wanted to fashion the impression I was not a serious thinker but a comedian.

But then the council got cold feet again when someone mentioned that rewarding me at this time may just be the breakthrough that will open other doors for me. And so the council decided to keep me invisible for ever lest I "burst" onto the scene and blaze the cultural trail out of their control.

As to why we had a reversal in the polls and why we suffered the loss in the referendum, it can all be attributed to one radio broadcaster called Rafe Mair who was and still is based in the Western Province of British Columbia. To understand what Mair did, we must meet another British Columbian, the Minister of Constitutional Affairs, Moe Sihota. This man did not like the fact that I was kept invisible during the negotiations and he wanted me to come out in the open because he said he felt like he was negotiating with a ghost.

Rafe Mair picked up on that and pointed to the fact that the group of Prominent Canadians who were allowed to steal my thoughts and arguments to the exclusion of everyone else were all from the Eastern Establishment of Ontario and Quebec. He led a revolt in the West and thus managed to sway public opinion against the Accord.

And in a classic example as to how the unintended consequences can take over the unfolding of events, Moe Sihota tried to reassure Rafe Mair that the situation was under control because the Premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, was outgunned by the maverick "ghost." In turn, this reassurance motivated someone in the Bourassa entourage to leak a conversation showing that the man caved in to the demands of English Canada. In turn, this revelation infuriated the people of Quebec who began to oppose the Accord as well. Thus, opposition was now coming from Quebec in the East as much as it did from British Columbia in the West. Ontario and Alberta followed suit and the result was disaster for our side.

The stunning thing is that the group of Prominent Canadians saw what was happening and they had a few days to save the situation and realize the dream of bringing Quebec into the Constitutional fold. All they had to do was lift me out of the blacklist which would have calmed the nerves of those guys in the Western part of the country. But no, the Prominent Canadians could not do this because the Jewish Establishment would rather see Canada remain fractured or even blow up than give me the chance to exercise my right to speak freely.

And within a day or two after the defeat of the referendum, the CBC produced a documentary under a title that sounded something like: "Anatomy of a Failed Accord" or some such title. The network did so in haste to quell the rumors which were bubbling about the "ghost" who played a key role in the events that had just unfolded. And of course, the documentary never mentioned the ghost.

When I was told about the role that the Jewish council played to scuttle my joining the "Just for Laughs" group, I was also told that the council did not like something else. It is that some rumors were circulating to the effect that calling on me to participate in the debate may have been the dice which Prime Minister Mulroney said he rolled when he decided to take up the Constitutional file. True or not, the council of Jews thought that such talk will give me an importance they will never be able to crush if I were taken off the blacklist and allowed to speak my mind.

In the end, unable to call a ghost "Newsmaker of the Year," the Canadian media establishment gave the honor to the referendum itself, an idea to which the CBC concurred wholeheartedly. And it is in this manner that events always begin in Canada, take shape, die and are buried. And if Canadian History looks and sounds boring on the surface, it is because the falsification of history and the recording thereof are done by a committee of mindless stiff upper lips at the very moment that the events are unfolding. If those guys cannot rob you and make themselves look and sound interesting brandishing the trophy they just looted, they will bury you along with the truth.

Finally, there is nothing the CBC can do now to give me back the life it has robbed me of in participation with others but there is plenty it can do to make things better for the Christian and Muslim Arab communities it has insidiously and incessantly maligned over the decades both by omission and by commission.

I shall be watching the opening ceremonies of the Olympic games that will take place in a few days to see if the top brass at the CBC are beginning to free themselves from the grip of Netanyahu of Israel who is manipulating them from afar, the one they have adopted as publisher in lieu of the Canadian public which is paying their salaries.

That Flagship Of Journalistic Prostitution

If you want to know how a superpower is reduced in less than a generation to something resembling the stuff of the toilets, read the New York Times because this publication has become the tool that can perform that amazing feat.

To fulfill its function, the New York Times did it again on July 21, 2008 when it published an article written by Andrew Martin under the title "Mideast Facing Choices between Crops and Water." This was one article in a series called The Food Chain where the world’s production of food was to be examined.

Martin’s article pretends to discuss the Middle East but concentrates on Egypt; pretends to talk about crops and water but sets out to denigrate Egypt. To be sure, nothing more than an irritation will be felt by the Egyptians as a result of that piece but plenty that is corrosive will happen to America – the sort of effect you get when you know that a prostitute lives next door.

When you see a title like "Mideast Facing Choices between Crops and Water," you expect to read about a tough equation the people of the region struggle to solve. In fact, many works on that subject have been published and are being published in scholarly journals and in other publications. When you read them, you know at the start that the articles will add to your insight as to how the people of the Middle East are coping with an impossible situation.

But when you get past the start of the New York Times article, you quickly realize that the paper is doing again what it has always done which is to use the subject as a springboard in order to implement the Likud edict. This is the edict which says: Never mind the subject you pretend to discuss, go ahead and heap praises on Israel, and denigrate Egypt. Do so by associating the latter with excessive religiosity, poverty, corruption or all of these.

Just look at what Martin says in his article. First he says that the Toshka farm was supposed to involve roughly 500,000 acres of farmland and tens of thousands of residents. But no one has moved there, and only 30,000 acres or so have been planted. He then tells of the farm manager who showed him fields of melon, alfalfa and rows of tomatoes and grapes. In fact, eleven pictures accompany the article showing those fields as well as a packing plant where people are seen doing the work.

In saying that only 30,000 acres have been planted, Martin deliberately gives the false impression that the project has stopped here and will never reach the 500,000 acres it was planned for. This is garbage talk because the plan is going full speed ahead with investments coming to it from many sides.

Furthermore, in saying that no one has moved there, Martin classifies as nobodies the farmers who work the fields and the people who work in the packing plants. This is so Likud-like, no one who is this fanatic about implementing their edict should be commissioned to write on a subject as important as this.

Andrew Martin goes on to say that one morning in a Cairo slum, people crammed in front of a bakery for their daily rations of subsidized bread that sells for less than a penny, so cheap that some people feed it to their livestock. But then he adds: "The bakery shares the end of a dead-end street with a mountain of garbage, 25 feet by 5 feet, that looks as if it is moving because so many flies swarm over it."

Assuming this last hyperbole to be literally true, how does it advance the point the author is making when the discussion is supposed to be about the tough equation that the people of the region struggle with to get out of a quandary as they make the choice between crops and water? The author does not say because he is really not talking about the equation; he is merely using the subject as a springboard to make that hyperbole.

But since he thought it necessary to discuss the subject of garbage, he should have explained that the Spanish garbage collection company which was contracted by the Cairo municipality to do the work started an illegal strike and caused the chaos in the streets of Cairo. However, the strike failed to cause the level of chaos that was seen in the Italian city of Milan by the garbage strike there because the Cairo municipality intervened early enough and forcefully enough to alleviate the situation.

And the author should have pointed out that feeding livestock with bread that costs virtually nothing is what contributed to the shortage of the staple in Egypt. In fact, 250 million loaves of subsidized bread are baked every day in that country supposedly to serve 20% of the population. A little calculation reveals that this comes to 16.25 loaves of bread per person. That’s a lot of dough, man! Clearly then, the apparent shortage of bread was not real but was the result of something that went wrong with the system which the government remedied in about a week.

Unaware of what Egypt’s farmers have been doing in the area of growing crops where they have a competitive advantage, Andrew Martin says that some economists have recommended that the countries in the region should grow crops like produce or flowers, which do not require much water and can be exported for top dollar.

The reality is that Egypt, which exports as much food as it imports fell into the present quandary by surprise. Rather than grow all the wheat it consumes, the country used to produce half of its need in wheat and import the other half to take advantage of the price war that erupted between the United States and the other wheat producing countries. Egypt then used the freed land and the water to grow other crops which it exported, using the income to pay for the wheat it imported. But then came the sudden increase in the price of wheat and the country was caught by surprise.

Andrew Martin skips over all of that and over the fact that Egypt helps to feed Israel as well as provide it with fuel. He also skips over the fact that only a few days ago, Egypt signed an agreement with the European Union to increase by 30% the export of Egyptian food to the countries of the Union. Instead, Martin cites the example of Doron Ovits whom he says runs a 150-acre tomato and pepper empire in the Negev Desert of Israel. His plants are irrigated with treated sewer water, says the author then remarks that: "…Israel has become the world’s leader in maximizing agricultural output per drop of water, and many believe that it serves as a viable model for other countries in the Middle East and North Africa." Not on your life, Andy.

The man commits three glaring omissions here. First, he neglects to say whether tomato grown in human pee and excrement is kosher. Second, he does not say whether or not the people in Europe who are eating the stuff know they are eating from the toilets of Israel. And third, he fails to mention that the Egyptians recycle their sewers too but they use the water to grow forests which they harvest to make furniture.

In fact, Egypt which is a desert country now produces more round wood than France and Italy put together. No wonder, Italy which used to be a leader in home furnishings and France which used to be a leader in office furnishings have both transferred many of their factories to Egypt which is fast becoming a leader in both home and office furnishings.

One more point needs to be made here. The method of water dripping and the use of computers are not the only techniques employed in modern agriculture. In fact, the modern approaches to agriculture begin before you plant the seeds. They begin with the reclamation of the land where lasers are used to level the fields and to rid them of pot holes. This is done to reduce the wasting of the water because water tends to accumulate in the pot holes and tends to run to the low end of a field that is not perfectly horizontal. A field that is totally flat and leveled uses the minimum amount of water and the plants do not suffer for it.

And when you have done all of that, you want to make sure you capture as much of the drainage water as you can which you then purify and recycle. The Egyptians do all of that with machines and techniques they helped to develop and now sell locally as well as to other countries.

Andrew Martin does not stop here in using the stereotypes that have been developed over the decades to denigrate Egypt. One stereotype is the relentless repetition of the notion that 20% of the citizens of Egypt live in poverty. The fact of the matter is that the bottom quintile in every country lives in poverty by definition. This is true in every European country as it is in North America and Asia and everywhere else. But what Martin fails to mention is that the bottom quintile in Egypt consumes more than 3,000 calories of food a day when the average consumption in Israel is less than that. This means the poorest of the poor in Egypt eats better than the average Israeli.

In fact, to solicit donations, an American rabbi called Ekstein is running infommercials on television showing the extent of despair in which some people in Israel live. The informmercials are not distinguishable from those made to solicit funds for the poorest of the poor in the most desolate regions of the Third World. Some scenes in those infommercials show places where people live inside abandoned buildings in Israel that make the garbage piled in the streets of Cairo and Milan look like paradise island.

Another stereotype used by Martin is really a fantasy developed by the Likud party of Israel. It says that under a 1959 treaty, Egypt is entitled to a disproportionate share of the Nile’s water, a point that rankles some of its neighbors. This is false. The treaty was never a point of contention among the countries bordering the Nile basin because until today, Egypt which comes at the end of the Nile’s run, still receives more than the 55 billion cubic meters allocated to it by the treaty. This means that the countries upstream are not using all that has been allocated to them let alone be rankled by what the treaty allocates to Egypt. In fact, some countries are suffering from floods due to excess water overflowing the banks of the Nile. The countries in question are now trying to remedy the situation in cooperation with Egypt that has the ideas and the technology.

Toward the end of the article, Martin quotes Richard Tutwiler of the America University in Cairo who says that Egypt is establishing 200,000 acres of farmland in the desert each year while losing 60,000 acres to urbanization. What the journalist neglects to say is that in addition to the land reclaimed in the desert, the country has embarked on a project to move to the desert the towns and villages that are strewn along the Nile so as to free up for agriculture the fertile lands they occupy. This massive project involves nearly 5,000 urban centers comprising about 3 million acres of land. When this is completed, the country will have added 50% more to its food supply, good to feed another 40 million people.

There is also the need to make one correction here. The 60,000 acres of urbanization referred to by Mr. Tutwiler are the 250 square kilometers of construction that is taking place in the country every year. While some construction is done illegally on farmland, most of it is done legally in the desert, thus the loss to agriculture is minimal.

Egypt is not being hurt by the repetition of the Likud rubbish because the only thing that repetition does is trivialize the subject it mentions. This is why people are touched by the mention of tragedies such as those which took place in Rwanda, Cambodia, Biafra, Ethiopia, Kossovo and other places but respond with a yawn at the mention of the Jewish holocaust. When this holocaust is mentioned you can almost hear the people exclaim: Who cares!

Idiotic repetition does that for you and idiotic repetition of the lies about Egypt is doing the same thing here too. Six million dead Jews or six million flies swarming over a pile of garbage: "Who cares!" say the good people of the world and move on to more important things.

As to what this does to the United States of America given that the New York Times is an American publication is another matter but you be the judge. As to the metaphor that applies here, it is that of the Likud pimp who is trying to sell a gray lady that could not turn on even a sex starved dog. She used to be pretty that lady; too bad she has turned so ugly and so repulsive.

Post Number 100 And Counting

This is post number one hundred and it is a milestone for me because I was never allowed to publish this much without the Canadian Establishment tripping me, smashing all that I built up and setting my effort on fire. It was vandalism on a scale that would have made the Nazis blush, and it went on for forty years.

This happened to me because I criticized the Establishment when I felt it was necessary to do so. I criticized the Jewish half of the Establishment some of the time, criticized the media half of the Establishment some other time and criticized both most of the time.

I owe my longevity this time to the internet which gave me the opportunity to engage the forces of darkness on a leveled playing field and defeated them with the light I shone on the issues that have preoccupied me all these years. They, who are in the Establishment knew I could defeat them, and this was the reason why they vandalized my life in the middle of the night and in hiding. But the internet allowed me to smoke them out onto the leveled field where I was able to deal with them in the appropriate fashion.

What I have thus far published on this site did more for my cause than anything I wrote previously. It may also surpass in importance the lawsuit I brought against a major Canadian newspaper for participating in the enforcement of the blacklisting of me. This act was ordered by the Jewish half of the Establishment and was adhered to by everyone else. And where some media outlets enforced the blacklist more enthusiastically than others, I sued the most enthusiastic of them all and therefore the most cowardly.

I realized early on that I was not the only one being treated like this and I was given the choice of doing what almost everyone else did which was to bend or to run away. I chose neither of these alternatives because I had another idea in mind. I had planned to do the unthinkable which was to stand up to both halves of the Canadian Establishment and fight rather than give in to what I considered to be criminal blackmail. I made this choice because I was convinced I had the duty to show humanity what ugly evil lurks in this part of the world.

To paint a picture of what this is all about, I must define with words the nature of an evil that is beyond description but I must try. So if you want to know what the most horrible holocaust looks like, do not think in terms of a group of people being brought together in a concentration camp where everyone is made to suffer not alone but in the company of those who would comfort you and offer solace. Yes, even a holocaust of this magnitude is a horrible thing to do to someone but there is worse than that; a whole lot worse than that.

Now think of a victim that is alone in the hands of someone like Paul Bernardo who used to rape, torture and kill young women as he videotaped the action. Or think of a victim like the woman who was kept in a basement several years by her rapist father. Or think of a victim like a child that is abused on a daily basis and warned never to tell anyone because if he or she did, everyone they know will be tortured and killed. Think of the holocaust that these people suffer alone, in silence and without any hope of being rescued or any hope that someone will ever find out what happened to them. Think of the pain that these people are made to suffer in hopeless silence. Think of that. Just think.

Because I realized that the people I was dealing with in the Canadian Establishment were of this most ugly type, I filed the lawsuit nearly two decades ago. I filed the suit and I conducted the trial myself not because I expected to win but, like we say in this country, to use the system of justice as a filing cabinet where I left a record of what happened so that future generations may study the horrors of our time. This was the only manner I had available to me to communicate with the outside world, albeit the world of the future.

I chose not to run away but to go through the horror because unlike those places called totalitarian states where the journalists, the writers and all those who dare to think independently are persecuted when they challenge the existing order, the Establishment in Canada denies that it even knows of the existence of its victim. And make no mistake, the Establishment makes the denial at the same time as it continues to poison the life of its victims in the dark and in hiding.

I had no illusion about the outcome of the lawsuit and to see why, you may consider the following. If someone of a humble stature like myself had brought a suit against "Lord" Conrad Black in a Canadian court, the judge would have proverbially come down the bench, bludgeoned me and used his gavel to sodomize me for daring to dream that the system of justice was here to give me justice. This is why the shareholders who sued Lord Black sued him in America and this is why he is now in jail and the shareholders have not been bludgeoned or sodomized.

Thus, when I sued the newspaper which was owned by someone even wealthier than the fallen Lord, I did not expect to win but I must admit I did not expect the outcome that was handed to me either. What happened was that instead of leaving the bench and bludgeoning me, the judge chided the newspaper representatives for saying they could not have hurt me because they never heard of me. They denied my existence but to my surprise the judge called them liars.

They did what I expected them to do but even a Canadian judge could not stomach a lie as preposterous as this and he asserted that the evidence was showing they had extensive contacts with me. This was good news to me because it represented ninety percent of the battle. But then the judge failed to make the logical deduction that by lying on something as material as this, they proved they were hiding something. And that something was the fact that they were enforcing the blacklist whose purpose was to make me invisible to the public in the same way that they were claiming I was invisible to them.

Not only that but the editor-in-chief of Canada’s oldest newspaper whom I subpoenaed to the trial admitted that I was blacklisted and she adhered to the blacklist as did everyone else. The judge glossed over this testimony but did not ignore it altogether in that he used it to save me a great deal of money. While he maintained I did not bring enough evidence for him to rule in my favor all the way, he ordered that I not pay the legal expenses which could have exceeded a hundred thousand dollars.

When someone is victimized in a totalitarian state it is easy to find out what is happening to them because the state makes the announcement. The state does this because it considers that to punish dissent is to protect the society, and so it wants everyone to know what the law says and everyone to be deterred from breaking it. To outsiders, however, the event looks like a parent is brutalizing its child for being naughty.

On the other hand, in a so-called democracy like Canada, the parent identifies that which is naughty as being an expression of freedom and pretends to encourage the child to practice it because such right will be protected by law. But when the child does as instructed, the parent rapes the child in hiding, denies it is doing so and warns the child to keep silent or suffer a much worse fate than rape. In fact, the Canadian Establishment encourages everyone to speak up, not to enrich the national dialogue as they do in civilized places but to identify those who may be dangerous to the existing order then proceeds to organize an orgy of gang rape that can last forty years or more.

This is the evil I wanted the world to be aware of. As technology advances and the world shrinks further, there will be less brutalizing of the independent thinkers in the open as do the totalitarian states and more of what Canada is practicing. Thus, the world must become more sophisticated at detecting the Paul Bernardo nations of this world and not be distracted by the juvenile antics of the so-called dictators whose acts are hurtful but not as horribly hurtful as the Canadian model.

Canada is a country that is admired yet it contains more child pornographers and more internet fraud artists than anywhere else. We have one of the most persistent problems of unity because we are incapable of writing a constitution that the people can accept yet we run around the world and try to write everyone else’s constitution. We have a security apparatus that is less than a sick farce yet we offer to train the security forces of other nations.

How do we do all this and get away with it? Well, we con the world; this is how we do it. Our culture does not empower us to do anything but to look good and do evil things. And so I took it upon myself to warn that to let this thing go on without check is not only bad for Canada but dangerous for the world.

I have so far held back discussing this aspect of my experience because I did not want it to obscure the other messages I wanted to air. I still have many of the regular things I wish to discuss before I depart this life, therefore I shall continue to do so. But I am now ready to tell my other story and I shall tell it concurrently with the regular things.

Also, I am not getting any younger or any healthier; I have neglected to do a few things over the years and I must now do them. I may, therefore, have to cut down on the amount of writing I do.

But first, I shall take a vacation for a while and so I say to all: So long for now.

A Boy Doing A Man’s Job (Part 2 of 2)

James Glassman’s article on June 10, 2008 in the Wall Street Journal tells the story of a boy who was called upon to do a man’s job. The boy is James Glassman himself and the job is that of winning the war of ideas.

Glassman says he can accomplish the task to which he was assigned by taking two approaches. The first will be to encourage Muslims to spread the denunciation of violence far and wide. The second will be to divert potential recruits from becoming terrorists.

And how will he go about putting these two approaches into effect? Well, he will piggyback on the fact that: "There is an emerging global network of families of Islamic victims of terrorist attacks…" And he will build networks such as mothers against violence, soccer enthusiasts, young entrepreneurs and Islamic democrats. Wow, dear reader, if you did not think this boy was brilliant like a star in the heavens, here is your proof.

Glassman does better than that when he rails against Iran and predicts that future suicide bombers will be sustained by people like the leadership of Iran. And he hints that young Iranians are such a proud and sophisticated bunch, they will stop listening to their elders and leaders and will follow him to the gates of America’s Nirvana. Of course he does not explain how this bunch got to be proud and sophisticated without the elders knowing about it but then he doesn’t have to because he believes he is talking to a bunch of nincompoops – which he may well be.

Finally, the boy Glassman predicts assertively that the use of violence to achieve political, religious or social objectives will no longer be considered acceptable, the efforts to radicalize and recruit new members will no longer be successful and the perpetrators of violent extremism will be condemned and isolated, all because of his efforts. Is this boy a saint or what!

With a plan like this, you want to ask why it is that Glassman is not recognized as the God of all geniuses. Well, he is not recognized because he is not a genius, much less a God. He is a waste of time and he will stand in the way of someone who may be more qualified from stepping forward and being appointed to the position – whatever the position is supposed to be.

Let me tell you about an experience I had with the North American culture which I feel is at play here. Long ago, I was a student and I lived on campus. The dormitory of the college had a common room where we, the students went to get away from books, watch television, listen to music or just meditate.

Most of the time we did not talk to each other in the common room, let alone argue about which record to play, what television channel to watch or discuss anything heavy like politics or religion. But there was one memorable exception to this rule, one exception that remains seared in my memory to this day.

President Nixon of the United States had gone to China, and for the first time we had a live television broadcast beamed to North America from Asia. I went to the common room to watch the event and saw two other students who had gone there for the same reason. Surprisingly, they were arguing about politics.

I understood right away that one student was from Taiwan. He appreciated free market capitalism and thus criticized the American President for going to Communist China, an act he feared signaled the end of Taiwan’s independence. He appeared to be a bright young man who knew Chinese history and Mao Tse Tung’s ideology like the palm of his hand. He had a good command of the English language and seemed to know American history well enough to render the other student nervous.

The other student was an American who dodged the draft and came to Canada to avoid being sent to Vietnam. He had developed Maoist leanings, no doubt as a way to protest his condition, and he admitted he never studied China but said he read a few things about the country. In fact, he displayed little knowledge about China and less about Mao Tse Tung to whom he attributed ideals out of his own fantasy. He praised those ideals no end, something that astonished the student from Taiwan and made him cringe at times.

What astonished me and made me cringe all the time was that the American stole facts and ideas he just heard from the Taiwanese, spun them to suit his point of view and threw them back at his unsuspecting interlocutor, making himself sound more knowledgeable than he really was.

This situation was odd by the fact that it represented a reversal of the positions you would expect to see from those individuals. As a spectacle, it was interesting to watch because of the oddity but there was something else going on. It is that the American student condescended to the Chinese as he tried to force on him views regarding China and Mao Tse Tung. But like a professor lecturing to a Chinese peasant, the American peppered his language with expressions like: "Concentrate on what I’m saying and you’ll understand better - Make the effort and you’ll see what I mean - It’s really not hard to grasp this."

It was riveting to watch and I could have taken a few more hours of this. Alas the encounter came to an abrupt end when all eyes turned to the television screen as the ceremony to receive the American President began to unfold half a world away. Fast forward three decades or so and witness the Americans tell the Arabs in a condescending manner how to govern themselves. And watch the boy Glassman tell them how to live their lives.

These guys are trying to tell daddy how to make babies but the Arabs who have been around for at least 7000 years have heard it before from the many babies who came along with a big mouth and a small brain, and then drowned in their own bath water. Or if they didn’t, they were thrown out with it.

Glassman is telling the Arabs to form groups of soccer moms but no basketball yet, groups of mothers against violence but not against drunk driving yet, groups of Islamic democrats but no republicans yet, and groups of young entrepreneurs but the hell with the older bunch that is monopolizing the oil trade and making the thing so expensive.

In short, Glassman does not want the Arabs to become like Americans, yet he has nothing to offer but the ephemeral American fads of the day when all that these people want is for America to get the hell out of their faces.

The Arabs and the other foreigners who express their dislike of America sense the idiotic approaches that the Americans take these days. But the foreigners do not express themselves clearly enough to make the Americans see themselves the way that the others see them. And it is for this reason that I bring the mirror to the Americans in the hope that they will see themselves the way they appear when they jump into the lead and tell everyone else what to do.

What the people of the World know and the Americans have trouble understanding is that it is a mistake to think of someone who urges everyone else to follow his lead as being confident because the reality is often the opposite. Such individuals, more often than not, turn out to be sham leaders who fear that if someone goes off on his own, he may leap ahead of them and leave them behind. Constantly urging everyone to follow one’s lead is not a manifestation of confidence, it is the manifestation of insecurity.

For this reason sham leaders have developed a variety of ways to piggyback on the ideas of original thinkers. As a nation and as individuals, the Americans behave like this today. Instead of engaging the World in an honest dialogue as equals, the Americans take someone else’s ideas, refashion them in their own image and try to shove the concoction down the throat of everyone else. And the resulting spectacle looks like what the draft dodger was doing to the Taiwanese student, and what Glassman is trying to do to the Arabs and the Muslims. No one in the World is buying this crap, and everyone is sickened by it.

What is sad about all of this is that America’s glory once stood on the shoulders of her original thinkers until she began to listen to members of the Jewish Lobby who conned her into believing they have a special covenant with God, something that makes them know better than all of her children put together. Members of the Lobby advised and she listened. They led and she followed. They ordered and she obeyed. They said jump and she asked: how high? Bit by bit America lost the engine of her greatness until she could no longer make a move without a push or a pull from the infamous Jewish Lobby.

Thus, what is left for the American people to do is to go back to the roots of their greatness. What broke America from her dependence on Britain and made her put down roots strong enough to lead the World was her revolutionary spirit. And it is within this spirit that the Americans must rediscover the greatness that is necessary to renew themselves and get their country back to where it may lead again.

And the revolution that is called for today is the one that will break America loose from the Jewish Lobby and allow her to deal with the Middle East in a manner that is consistent with the interests of Americans and not the interests of Israelis. James Glassman and those like him should worry about fixing broken America not about fixing an Arab World that ain’t broke.

A Boy Doing A Man’s Job (Part 1 of 2)

On June 10, 2008 James Glassman was sworn in as under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs in the United States of America. Two weeks later, he wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal under the title: "How to win the war of Ideas" in which he discussed his understanding of the challenges ahead and his plan of action to meet those challenges. The following six paragraphs summarize what the article says.

[First, we need to get the goal straight…The aim must be to ensure that negative sentiments and day-to-day grievances toward the U.S. and its allies do not manifest themselves in violence]

[For starters, we should confront the ideology of violent extremism…The most credible voices here are those of Muslims themselves…who have publicly disavowed al Qaeda's methods…Our public diplomacy efforts should encourage Muslims…to spread the denunciations of violence…far and wide.]

[A second approach to the war of ideas may…be even more effective…The ideology that motivates al Qaeda and similar groups is based on the notion that believers have a duty to carry out the excommunication of unbelievers…This ideology posits a Manichean world, divided into two camps…This is a fantasy…Our vision is a pluralistic world…The task is not to persuade potential recruits to become like Americans…but to divert them from becoming terrorists.]

[We do that by helping to build networks…cultural, social, athletic and more: mothers against violence, video gamers, soccer enthusiasts, young entrepreneurs, Islamic democrats. For example, there is an emerging global network of families of Islamic victims of terrorist attacks…the war of ideas needs to adopt the…goal of diverting impressionable segments of the population from being recruited into violent extremism.]

[Where does Iran fit in? The pool of future suicide bombers and insurgents is sustained by people like the leadership of Iran…the approaches I have outlined…should appeal to a proud and sophisticated Iranian population that is open to pluralistic ideas.]

[What we seek is a world in which the use of violence to achieve political, religious or social objectives is no longer considered acceptable, efforts to radicalize and recruit new members are no longer successful, and the perpetrators of violent extremism are condemned and isolated.]

In reality the appointment of Glassman came amid a debate regarding America’s effort to win the hearts and minds of somebody whom the debaters are having difficulty identifying. Officials of the US government did start a television broadcast called "Al Hurrah" which means freedom in Arabic but it is difficult to tell what sort of freedom they are trying to preach given that the Arabs believe it is America that needs to be free of Jewish influence and Israeli domination.

In any case, before I jump into the debate and discuss Glasman’s article I want to give a historical perspective of the situation as I experienced it in the late Nineteen Fifties when I lived in that part of the World.

I was in my early teens and living outside of Egypt in 1956 when the country was invaded by Britain and France, an adventure embarked upon by the two colonial powers in an effort to retake the Suez Canal which was nationalized by the Egyptians following the refusal of the World Bank to finance the construction of the Aswan dam and power station.

The American President, Dwight Eisenhower who had liberated Europe a few years prior to that time, ordered the invaders to stop the aggression and get out of Egypt, and they did without much argument. The Egyptians were grateful and they regarded America highly despite the role that her Secretary of State had played to influence the ill-advised decision of the World Bank.

A year following that invasion, our family returned to Egypt where we settled after an absence that lasted a dozen years. Everything was new to me but I adapted quickly to the new environment. I also picked up a new hobby, that of listening to short wave radio. I listened to something like fifteen stations on a regular basis, some of which were well known such as the BBC, the Voice of America, Radio Moscow, those of Israel and France et cetera. But the rest of the stations were pirate broadcasts emanating from places they never identified.

These were propaganda stations that incited the people of Egypt to rise up, rebel and overthrow their government. The BBC and radio Israel caught my attention because the first emulated the pirate chorus of inciters to a limited extent while the second joined the pirates as enthusiastically as anyone can be.

Let me give a piece of advice to anyone who plans to incite the Arabs on anything. If you want to make the Arabs love their leaders, start a pirate station and attack the leaders. There is nothing more childish, more cowardly and more disgusting in the estimation of the Arabs than to go into hiding and attack an Arab however bad you may think that person may be.

I listened to those stations not to learn what was wrong about Egypt or bad about President Nasser but to learn what was glorious about the country and noble about her President, my President. Of course, it also helped that the American Central Intelligence Agency tried to bribe President Nasser with 3 million dollars, a sum that was huge at the time.

Incorruptible as the man was, he took the money which was handed to him in a briefcase full of cash, told the World about it and used it to build the Cairo Tower in full view of the Hilton Hotel where the American tourists stayed. Nasser did this to show ordinary Americans how much their country had deteriorated and to tell them what their country can do with her bribes. Come to think of it, the tower has the look of a raised middle finger, so maybe the late President of Egypt was telling America you can take your money and shove it.

Now, dear reader, contrast the action of Nasser with what was going on in Israel at the time, what has been going on ever since and what is going on today in terms of the corruption that is more abundant in that nation than the grains of sand in all of the Middle Eastern deserts. I suppose this is the difference between the nobility of the Arabs and the baseness of the Israelis, a reality that the New York Times is frantically trying to project in reverse. Maybe there is something the New York Times forgot to shove.

The Voice of America caught my attention for a reason different from those of the BBC and radio Israel. That broadcast gave English lessons through a program whose title in Arabic translates into: "Learn English". This may sound tame in English but it sounds harsh in Arabic. Consequently, the announcer would once in a while explain the reason why the title had this imperative tone about it. He or she would say that English is so important a language that everyone must learn it.

I cannot tell how many people were impressed by this claim but I was not, having heard the same claim made by the French whose language I had mastered and the Arabs whose language I was in the process of mastering.

Fast forward to the present time. I never had the opportunity to watch the new television station "Al Hurrah" but nothing from what I learned as I listened to the Voice of America tells me Al Hurrah will impress the Arabs to any degree. Also, I spoke to people who traveled to the Middle East and watched the station there, I read about this American adventure and I watched sample clips of what it is doing. My conclusion is that the effort is likely to be a useless one and will probably lead to nothing worth mentioning.

I was beginning to put my finger on why this may be the outcome when Glassman’s article was published. And this piece served to reinforce the theory I was formulating which is that the mentality that tried to tell the Arabs at gunpoint how to govern themselves is now trying to tell them how to be free. It is doing it by telling them to submit to the slavery from which, in Arab and Muslim eyes, America is suffering as she has become a client state of Israel and the slavish follower of the Jewish lobby.

At first, it may be difficult to accept that a situation like this can be but it gets easier to see the reality of the thing when you consider the following. The one thing that shocks almost everyone on the planet about the Anglo-Saxon culture is that the servant will feel superior to everyone else and will act in a snooty supremacist fashion the more faithfully he submits to the whims of his master however capricious and demeaning those whims may be.

In fact, an Anglo-Saxon servant can psyche himself into believing that to bring someone under the dominance of his master is to liberate that someone. And what most Americans and most Canadians do not realize is that hidden in our culture is this English tendency. Furthermore, no matter what the ethnic background of the newcomers to this Continent, they pick up this trait without realizing it. After a while, we all adopt this shocking mentality and we don’t even know it.

And it is this mentality that is the source of America’s troubles today as America tries to drag the World under the influence and the dominance of America’s master, the World Jewish Congress.

And the discussion continues in part 2 of this series.

“Amerika with a K” Revisited

On Friday June 20, 2008 the New York Times ran a story about Israel conducting military exercises which the Americans described as a rehearsal for bombing Iran. No one in his right mind believes that this was a journalistic scoop on the part of the New York Times much less a scoop that turned into an international sensation by the merit of its content.

In fact, it is in keeping with the new trend in American journalism for the NY Times to have allowed itself to be used by Israel. This charade has the hallmark of a story that was planted in the publication with the connivance of its editors and publishers, and with the participation of high officials at the State Department of the US government. And this is exactly the sort of atmospherics that the World Jewish Congress is expert at organizing.

Looking closely at the story, one cannot help but remember the decades of the Nineteen Sixties and Seventies. Those who were adolescents then and who rebelled against their elders are middle aged now and they are playing the games that their elders played except that the progenies have added two more elements. Instead of playing the game just on the home ground, they are now playing it on the international stage and they are mixing the games that their elders played with what they played as adolescents.

The games the elders played were described as sexual politics where it was said that nothing happened unless you slept with someone or got screwed by someone. The response of some youngsters at the time was to resort to the language of the gun which itself became a symbol of the phallus. But to understand the transition from the mentality of then to the mentality of today, we must recall a television show that was titled America with a K.

America is spelled with a C but in those days a television show was born and was given the title Amerika with a K where the K was meant to signify that the spelling was Russian. In fact, this was the story of an America that came under Soviet occupation.

What prompted the making of this show was the production of another show done by the same network. That was ROOTS which was based on Alex Haley’s book by the same name. What happened after Roots was hailed for causing a sea change in American attitudes was that some fringe characters in America were infuriated.

These characters considered the show too liberal to go without a challenge and so they asked for the sort of balance that only they were able to conjure up. The network understood their distress and produced America with a K.

Before DNA had made it possible for individuals to trace their roots, Haley could only trace the roots of African Americans as a group, and he did it through the tale of their painful journey into slavery. The tale was fiction but the underlying story was true. Even then, the dramatized form of the story so unsettled the lunatic fringe in the politico-cultural Establishment that the network was forced to restore the psychological balance of those poor souls by giving in to their neurotic impulses and playing out their fear of being enslaved by the Soviets.

And there is a message in the way that these events unfolded. It is that when ROOTS symbolically liberated Black America, some folks felt shackled as if they had come under alien occupation. To these people, their own freedom cannot coexist with the freedom of others because they view the situation as “it is either me or it is you but it is never both of us.” This twisted logic was not an isolated case but was the evolutionary result of a process that was in the making for decades.

In fact, before there was the phobia about the Soviets there was the one about America and the World coming under occupation by aliens from outer space. The irony is that the space aliens were meant to symbolize the Communist infiltration of America as feared by Senator Joseph McCarthy.

But then the Soviet empire collapsed and someone realized that without a new phobia and a bogeyman on which to beat up, the same maladjusted fringe will lapse into a psychotic fit from which they may never recover. Thus Islam and the Arabs were fashioned into a bogeyman on which to beat up and release the tensions of daily living.

Enter stage right the Israel/Jewish propagandist who asserted that he changed his stripes and now sits to the right of Attila the Hun, having abandoned his once comfortable place on the left of Joseph Stalin. “Let me join you in beating up on the Arabs and the Muslims,” said the big mouth “I know these people and you will do well to watch me savage them as I turn them black and blue all over their bodies.”

The novelty was irresistible to those Americans who live and die by novel things. They let the self declared Jew do his number while the stoic Arab stood motionless and took the beating without uttering a sound. Realizing the absurdity of the situation, some Americans asked for time out to reconsider the whole situation. This is where we stand today, and so it is fair to ask: Where will things go from here?

I am obliged to answer by discussing the sexual connotation of the drama at play here. In fact, the most poignant moments in America with a K were those scenes when the commander of the Soviet forces entered an American home, picked the daughter of his choice, took her to the bedroom in front of the family and had sex with her.

Expressing this sort of sexual fears was not new to the Americans. In fact, the daily language of America is full of sexual expressions and vulgar connotations, and no less than President Lyndon Johnson used to say he feared the Communists would “come into your house and rape your wife in your bed.”

This is what prompted a Jewish friend of mine to speak up as he was old enough to remember the McCarthy era when the words Jew and Communist were synonymous. My friend was fearful of the Americans whom he thought were fickle enough to turn on a dime, and was fearful of the Jewish Establishment which he thought was too self-serving to be trusted with the lives of ordinary Jews.

My friend once cried out from the heart: “One day, the Americans will wake up and believe they were screwed in the head, screwed in the heart and screwed in the soul by the Jews who led them by the nose to the ruin of their nation. When this happens, watch those Americans grab their two hundred million guns (all symbols of the penis) and cut down the Jews into little pieces.” In reality, my friend did not mention the penis and he did not use the word screw. Instead, he used the word that begins with the letter f.

I learned from all of this that as long as the New York Times and the other publications will allow themselves to be used by Israel, they will deteriorate. As long as the American government will mortgage America’s prestige and credibility to play the game of Israel’s cohorts in America, the country will suffer. As long as Israel will play a dangerous game in the Middle East, America will pay the price.

Thus, in that charade about bombing Iran, no one in his right mind believes that the 100 planes which Israel could field against Iran from nearly a thousand miles away will scare that country when America which can field up to 4,000 planes from near and from afar did not scare it.

Besides, Israel never won a battle that was not a sneak attack conducted when those at the target sight were asleep. Let the Israelis get into an honest fight with someone half their size and they will be crushed like a bug under the feet of an elephant. They always lost a fight that was not a treachery after which they bellyached their usual cries of being so vulnerable and so much in need of more American aid.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from all this is that the reason for staging Israel’s exercise and for dragging into the charade both the NY Times and the State Department was to play the adolescent game of showing off a sexual prowess that neither of the players has. The reality is that in the region where the Arab and Muslim bogeyman resides, America and Israel have come to be regarded not as a case of the blind leading the blind but a case of the emasculated Israeli walking with the castrated American looking for the Studhouse.

If the fears of my Jewish friend come true and the day of reckoning comes knocking at the door, the Arab and Muslim bogeyman may take a beating but he will not vanish from the scene anymore than the Afro-American has vanished from Africa or from America. These people will always be here as they have been from the beginning of time despite all the phobias that came and went over the millennia. But those who will vanish are the myth makers whose sole talent is to exist at the expense of the suckers who listen to them.

Never did these people eradicate someone but were nearly eradicated themselves each time they tried to pull their gruesome stunt on someone. And it happened to them not by the enemies they chose to challenge but the friends they chose to exploit. And this is because in the end, everyone realized that with friends like these they did not need enemies and so they took care of the situation the only way they knew how.

Before this happens again, we the Arabs of Christian and Muslim persuasions must make it clear that we have nothing to do with this unfolding drama or the tragic ending anticipated by my Jewish friend. Do not blame us if and when all this comes to pass. We sounded the alarm but no one listened, least of all the Israel/Jewish Establishment which is the author of the drama and the architect of the tragedy.

Steering The Economic Ship Of State (Part 2 of 2)

Caught between the arguments of the supply side economists on one hand and the labor and consumer side economists on the other, the captain of the ship of state must decide how he is going to allocate the tax breaks among all the parties that come knocking at his door and yet keep the economic engine humming at maximum potential.

The supply side economists want the businesses to get most of the breaks but the labor and consumer side economists want the workers and the consumers to get them. Both sides articulate powerful arguments to buttress the merit in their economic philosophy and so, what’s a captain to do?

At first, our captain sets aside the arguments he heard from either side of the divide and paints a mental picture of the situation to help him visualize it. He imagines himself in the role of the farmer who must decide how much of the seeds he will plant (which is the analogy to giving the breaks to business) and how much of the seeds he will store to feed his family as they await the next harvest (which is the analogy to giving the breaks to consumers.)

But then the captain realizes that things are more complicated than this because there are many types of businesses, each standing at a different level of worthiness. And the last thing he wants to do is help them all without distinction or choose between winners and losers. Still, because there is no getting around the capitalist dictate that choices must be made, he struggles to find a way that will let the marketplace make the choices.

After giving it some thought, he realizes that unlike the farmer who has only himself and his family to contend with, he must regard himself as head of a massive ship of state that is navigating difficult waters and where he is responsible for people with all sorts of needs and responsible for a physical plant that is in need of all sorts of attention.

And so, to refine his understanding of this reality and to find a way to better formulate and implement the decisions he will be called upon to make, he goes over the arguments of the economists and paints a more comprehensive picture of the situation, one that he believes takes into consideration all the elements of this complex issue.

He recalls that the supply side economists spoke about the need to encourage new businesses to open and old ones to expand. They also spoke of people who have good ideas that need financing. Well, he knows as much as anyone there is two types of financing: There is equity financing where the financier and the owner of a potential venture enter into partnership. And there is debt financing where the financier lends money to those who have collateral they can pledge against the loans they seek.

However, the people who have ideas and no money of their own find it difficult to borrow because they usually have no collateral that they can pledge. And so they turn to the venture funds with whom they seek to enter into partnership. But before the joining of capital and the idea can take place, the funds sift through all the incoming ideas to asses the merit of each. Only then do the funds decide which idea to partner with and which to discard.

This mechanism by which venture capital operates brings together all the elements that create new wealth. It is the manifestation of capitalism at its best because it enriches those who are involved in the venture and benefits all of society. And yet, no one in this undertaking stands to take advantage of the tax breaks that the government hands out. Clearly then, there is something wrong with this set up, something that will have to be addressed at some point.

Moreover, those who are likely to receive the tax breaks are those who already pay taxes which means they have the money and the wherewithal to raise more of it. If they wish to expand the existing business or start a new one, they can borrow money as easily as they can ask for a loan. Alternatively they can issue new equity on their existing business and they are set to go.

But the stark reality is that even though individuals and businesses in this category would be the first to benefit from a tax break, they do not clamor for one precisely because they have the other alternatives to which they naturally gravitate rather than ask for and be obliged to wait for a handout from the government.

And so, the baffling question to ask is this: Who then clamors the loudest for a tax break? Well, they are the financiers who lend money to businesses and to governments. Unlike the venture capitalists, these people and their investment houses play it safe and thus gravitate toward the bond market where they finance the debt of blue chip corporations and the appetite of all levels of government.

People in this category sustain themselves with the interest they receive lending out their capital reserves. The peculiar thing about them is that when the economy is good and the interest rates are low, they make less profit which depletes their reserves. The consequence is an odd spectacle which can be described like this: When the good times roll and the wealth creating businesses need no infusion of money, these people clamor for a tax break in the name of those businesses not to help the businesses but to replenish their own dwindling reserves.

A good economy being their enemy, these people prefer one in which the inflation and the interest rates are high. This makes them the quintessential loan sharks who have no skills to create wealth and no way to make money even in a good environment. When they ask for a tax break they, in effect, ask the government to borrow from the public and give them the money which they lend back to the government and to corporations thus continue to receive interest.

At this point in his thinking, the captain of the ship of state resolves that the best way to deal with the situation is to give the tax breaks to the consumers who will spend the money where they see fit and thus determine the fate of each business. Doing this will amount to letting the marketplace make the momentous decisions which is how it should be.

Of course there are retired senior citizens and other people who live on income derived from interest. They get hurt when the interest rate drops; therefore they must be helped when they cannot make ends meet. But this is why there is a social safety net and it should be so formulated as to be invoked and made to respond to this sort of challenges.

Also, supply side economics is not to be rejected out of hand because some businesses can use a helping hand and they should be supported. Most notably, these are the venture funds that take major risks only to see the start-ups they back succeed some of the time but not always. These funds are the expression of democracy and meritocracy because they give the little guy the chance to participate in the economy and thus act as the incubators of the gods of innovation who make the economy flourish like no other business or individual can.

And so the captain of the ship of state hits on the idea that good supply side economics is a marketplace that is supplied with easy credit rather than tax breaks. Easy credit gives everyone an equal opportunity at getting into business and developing the ideas to their full potential. But since easy credit can be misused when money is lent for causes that are not always worthy, regulations will be adopted by his government to discourage irresponsible lending practices.

If despite these precautions too much money will find itself in the marketplace and cause an increase in inflation, his government will not shy away from raising the taxes rather than raising the interest rates to sponge the excess money out of the marketplace. Taxes will be increased on corporations, individuals or both depending on what else is happening in the economy at the time. This is something that the executive and the legislature will have to play by ear but the important thing is that money thus collected will be destroyed and not recycled back into the economy.

To this end, the captain gets together with the central bank and the legislature to formulate a whole new way to steer the economic ship of state and safely navigate the new globalized sea. From now on, the economy will be run on a variable but generally easy regime of credit, and a variable regime of taxes that will run the gamut from very low to high.