Gunboat Diplomacy to suit Donald Trump

Until now, I didn't care much about the way that Donald Trump conducted his business because I didn't think he would be much different from those in his line of business, in the milieu in which they all operate, in the time period in which we all live. But something has changed.

Now that Donald Trump has given a 4,000-word foreign policy speech – all of which sound insincere except for nine of them – I wonder about his business practices. Actually, the words are only 3, and they are repeated three times: keep the oil, keep the oil, keep the oil. This was enough for me to start worrying how Trump conducts business; apparently the only way he knows how. If he wants to be President of the United States, I can only surmise it is because the country has the military he is eying to conduct foreign policy the way that gunboat diplomacy was handled in the nineteenth century.

What tells you he is being “sarcastic” about everything, which he is by sheer habit, yet is dead serious about wanting to take and keep the oil that belongs to others – is the passage in which he tells of the relationship he has with wealth, whether it is his own or that of others. Here is what he says in this regard: “we would have had the benefits of the oil, which I wanted to use to help take care of the wounded soldiers and families of those who died … This proposal would have left soldiers in place to guard our assets. In the old days when we won a war, to the victor belonged the spoils”.

Being sarcastic about everything means he has only one obsession, to grab as much wealth as he can by hook or by crook. This must have been the motto by which he lived and built his business; which is what makes him great in his own eyes. So now, he wants to inflict that same pathology on a world that will most certainly fight back. And because Trump will have taken the initiative in the name of America using America's military to infringe on the possessions of others, the world will, in effect, fight back against America.

In suggesting that “our current strategy of nation-building and regime change is a proven failure,” he asserts that he would not have invaded Iraq as did George W. Bush; or bombed Libya as did Barack Obama. But he recognizes that parts of the Middle East and North Africa are in turmoil at this time, and so he adds: “We cannot let this evil continue, nor can we allow the hateful ideology reside or spread within our own countries.” This means he intends to do something about it. What would it be?

Before answering that question, Trump delves into a little history: “Ronald Reagan touted the superiority of freedom over communism, and called the USSR the Evil Empire … Yet, when Obama delivered his address in Cairo, no such moral courage could be found. Instead of condemning the oppression of women and gays in many Muslim nations, the violations of human rights and the financing of terrorism, Obama tried to draw an equivalency between our human rights record and theirs”.

So that's the answer to the above question. Donald Trump wants to go to the heart of the Arab and Muslim world, and tell the people over there they are evil. He'll condemn them because they oppress women and gays, violate human rights, and finance terrorism. And he'll warn them against drawing an equivalency between their human rights record and that of America.

This done, he'll ask his hosts to join America in the war against ISIS while “Western” political teachers, human rights experts and financial wizards will be going into every corner of their lands where they'll teach their kids how to mass murder other kids in schools and movie theaters the way they do in America. They'll instruct their nutcases how to kill women and sell their flesh as pork meat the way they do in Canada … not to forget eating someone alive on the bus. And they'll show the Arab young men how to burn the brides that show up with inadequate dowry the way they do in India. And Trump will instruct the Arabs and the Muslims they should label this system: healthy democracy.

Of course, that's not going to happen free of charge. It will be made clear to everyone that America will have to get its honorarium (the spoils) the way things used to happen in the old days. And he'll tell the Arabs and the Muslims that the honorarium which makes him drool day and night, is oil, oil, oil. They'll have to deliver or else … and they’ll have to remain aware all the time that American gunboats are stationed all around them.

Now you know why he wants to be commander in chief.

No Ditch is big enough to take-in this Deal

John Bolton is after “Ditching the Iran nuclear deal,” which is the title of his newest article, published on August 13, 2016 in the Pittsburgh Tribune. The trouble is that the deal is too big and too important to be ditched. You might say there isn't a ditch big enough to take it in and hide it.

Like everyone of his ilk, Bolton has criticized the deal while it was being negotiated and after it was signed, sealed and delivered. All the points that could be made for and against it were made, but the deal survived because it proved to be necessary for the welfare of the planet and the survival of the human race. That's a levelheaded humanity that was well represented at the negotiating table.

So then, what can a Johnny-come-lately that has come before and put down a whole bunch of eggs and duds, say this time that will be new and a welcome addition to the debate? Nothing really, but John Bolton convinced himself he has the goods, and he can deliver. To this end, he uses the transfer of money to Iran as a springboard to launch a new attack on the nuclear deal. Knowing that the transfer has been haggled over to death already, he derogates past objections to it so as to make his new objection to the nuclear deal sound formidable by comparison. Look how he does that:

“Obama's transfer to Iran of $400 million highlights the errors infecting his policy regarding Tehran … Humiliating though it was, the real lessons of the payment are even broader. Obama's view of the world – and America's place in it – is fundamentally flawed, as is that of Hillary Clinton. To avoid further harm to the United States, we should start by abrogating the Vienna nuclear agreement”.

Did you notice something odd in that passage? Bolton stealthily injected the name Hillary Clinton into the discussion. In fact, as you go through the rest of the article, you realize that his conception of it is to carry on with a local political discourse where the electorate, in this election year, is polarized and sharply divided. Meanwhile he pretends to conduct a foreign policy discourse where the electorate can be swayed by someone reputed to be a foreign policy wonk. This is like selling a Cadillac equipped with the motor of a Chevrolet.

It turns out, however, that Bolton could not carry on with a foreign policy discussion without rehashing the negative talking points that were made previously with regard to the nation of Iran; to the nuclear deal that was concluded with it, and the transfer of money that was made to it. He does all that and does something else too. He weaves into his narrative the domestic subplot pertaining to Hillary Clinton.

He fires the shot that signals the start of the subplot with this: “Trump has criticized Obama's deal with Iran, while Hillary Clinton has strongly supported it, appropriately enough since its basic foundations were laid when she was at state … the ayatollahs, aware that the deal is beneficial to them, are worried. Khamenei has complained that 'candidates in the American election are threatening to tear up the nuclear deal. If they do we will burn it.'”

Wait a minute. Does that look like a worried complaint by Khamenei? It is obvious that John Bolton is deficient in his understanding of the culture he discusses. What Khamenei did, in effect, is the equivalent of the Western “doubling down.” Actually, it is more than that because when you go from tearing up the deal to burning it, you escalate. Bolton would have understood this much if he knew of the Middle Eastern saying that goes: If you sprinkle us with water, we'll sprinkle you with blood. Going from tear-up to burn is like going from water to blood.

No, the Iranians are not scared; what they did is call Trump's bluff – which to them represents America's bluff. Talking about America being humiliated for returning the money it owes Iran rather than do what common thieves do and keep it, the question is this: What does Bolton think of a bluff that will leave America with the choice of surrendering or starting a war it cannot win? In the long run, this bluff will backfire on America.

Here again is a John Bolton who has no understanding of the culture he's talking about, denigrating a Clinton observation with these words: “Does she think the Guards Corps sit around contemplating this question?” He goes on to posit that “Rouhani would never have been elected had not Khamenei considered him a trustworthy subordinate.” This done, he finally reveals what his article is all about:

“Eight years of Obama has been damaging and dangerous to the U.S. We don't need a third Obama term.” Sorry John; once again you failed to make a case.

A big Lie reveals who John Bolton is

John Bolton asked the question: “Who Will Lead the United Nations?” It happens to be the title of an article he wrote, which also came under the subtitle: “Will President Obama back a 'secular pope' or a humble 'chief administrative officer'?” It was published on August 8, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.

It is only natural that this should prompt the reader to ask: “Who is John Bolton?” in the sense of what makes this man tick? The fact is that Bolton did not appear out of nowhere; he's been around for a long time and has had a history that defined him in the past. Thus, the reason to ask what makes him tick now is to try and determine if he changed. If the answer is yes, other questions may follow.

There is no doubt that as time moves on, circumstances change. Immersed in those circumstances, we all change because we need to adapt lest we ossify and wither away. But there is a difference between changing superficially to harmonize with the times, and changing fundamentally after discovering that we've been on the wrong track long enough. Well then, how does all this apply to John Bolton?

Briefly, Bolton was at one time the most powerful individual laboring to implement Pax Americana; an important plank in the neocon ideology. But eight years of Democratic governance in America, followed by the implosion of the Republican Party, has killed that project for good. Does this mean Bolton has changed his view of the world? It is too soon to give a definitive answer to this question. But given Bolton's celebration of the Brits voting to leave the European Union, we see that he still favors doing away with the existing order.

This poses a dilemma. With an existing order that's being dismantled, and a Pax Americana that is no longer available to replace it, where does Bolton hope to see the world go? To find out, we could look for clues in his article. Unfortunately, doing so raises more questions than it answers because John Bolton seems uncertain of what he wants.

The article being on choosing a new Secretary General for the United Nations, he asserts that “significant American interests are at stake.” And so, he sees that the choice comes down to one of two possibilities. Either a candidate that will reform a disorganized UN – now run on bloated budgets by corrupt bureaucrats; or a candidate that will please “the supranational globalists who want to restrain the U.S.”

This says Bolton wants to see an America that is free to do what it wants, having to answer to no one. He then goes into the UN history during the past quarter century. He says that the Egyptian Boutros Ghali was not allowed to serve a second term as Secretary General because “the Clinton administration came to swords' points” with him. Had Bolton stopped here, the readers might have believed what he says. But he pushed his luck a little too far, thus demonstrated that he'll lie like only John Bolton can lie. This is what he went on to say: “His [Ghali's] disdain for Madeleine Albright was well known. So out he went”.

That is totally false. The reality is that Ghali was the victim of two pathologies acting in concert with each other. The first is the Jewish pathology of sabotaging every progress or advancement that an Arab or a Muslim makes in any field. The second pathology is that of the Americans blindly executing the Jewish commands without question. They do so because they are raised on the idea that a wish expressed by a Jew is a command that's absolute as dogma. They must execute it no matter the cost to America or to anyone else.

John Bolton then mentions two Secretaries General who were allowed to serve a second term: Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon. In fact, both had serious differences with America – as acknowledged by Bolton – but neither was hated by the Jews. For this reason, no legislator such as Jesse Helms was drafted to work on ditching either of them the way that he did with Boutros Ghali.

It must be said that Jesse Helms was the arch-enemy of Israel before they accused him of antisemitism and blackmailed him. When they gathered enough dirt on him, and let him know what they had, he made an abrupt reversal and became the obedient servant of the Jews. In the style of the mafia which requires new recruits to prove their allegiance by doing a serious hit on someone, Helms was ordered to do a hit on the Egyptian Secretary General, and he did. Madeleine Albright had nothing to do with any of that.

This is the history that Bolton’s lie was designed to hide. It is why we must conclude that he knows not what to do now because his Jewish masters are themselves confused, and don't know what they want.

What is certain, however, is that no matter who the UN chooses to be its Secretary General, America will not be free to do what it wants – considering that it takes orders from the Jews.

The fact is that to be in the service of the Jews is no freedom at all. To haggle like the Jews is no democracy at all. John Bolton is a living proof of that.

Son of Psycho is preparing for the 'Situation'

It took a second generation Holocaust psycho to show how the Jews go about putting together the harmless-looking building blocks that end up being used in the construction of the genocidal fait accomplis.

It must be said that the Jews have been experimenting with all sorts of plans to grab all of Palestine, and make themselves look – at least in the eyes of the demented Congress of America, if not the world – that they are acting as angels trying to improve the lives of the Palestinian people.

The U.S. Congress drank from this KOOL-AID for half a century while the Jews were making things worse for everyone ... plan after plan after plan. It is that the 4000-year failures of the Jews – who turned everything they touched into a horror show – were stubbornly repeated time after time after time.

Their latest design being a last ditch do-or-die adventure, they called on their operatives everywhere in the world to help pull it off. An example of this can be seen in the previous article on this website which was titled: “A last Hurrah by ISIS and by Israel.” It discusses two articles, one that was written by Elliott Abrams and one that was written by Benny Avni, both representing building blocks meant to construct the ultimate genocidal fait accompli.

And then there is the David Feith article which came under the title: “Your Tax Dollars Fund Palestinian Terror” and the subtitle: “How do U.S. aid transfers square with laws against funding terrorism? Willful blindness helps.” It was published on August 11, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal. What is significant about this article is that it sheds much light on the plan that the Israelis have been talking about for some time – calling it the 'Situation' – without revealing its content.

David Feith is a second generation Holocaust psycho; a reality that makes him more extreme and more virulent than the previous generation. He tips his hand inadvertently, revealing what's in the 'Situation.' He did so because unlike Abrams and Avni who concentrated their attacks on Hamas in Gaza, he has thrown a wider net to encompass all Palestinians, especially those who live in the part of Palestine known as the West Bank.

Without saying that the West Bank is occupied territory, therefore a war zone, he alleges that “13-year-old Hallel Yaffa Ariel was murdered by a knife-wielding Palestinian. She was a dual Israeli-American citizen, making her the 11th American killed by Palestinians since 2014.” Instead of arguing that the government of Israel is sending American citizens to die in a war zone, thus win sympathy in America and oodles of cash from the Congress, David Feith turned the story around and said this: “A Palestinian with a wife and children who dies or is captured and sentenced to more than 30 years in prison earns the most. Singles [and] childless earn less”.

Even if you ignore the story which came out to the effect that the 13-year-old girl was not knifed by a Palestinian boy but was mistakenly shot by her own father, the telling of this story and the others like it by David Feith reveal something about the fight that's ongoing between the heavily armed Jewish invaders and the unarmed indigenous Palestinians. It is that the place has gotten too crowded to accommodate them both much longer.

In fact, recent Israeli studies have revealed – and several demographic experts have warned – that the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea has become a demographic time bomb. The pressure can only be relieved by one of two methods, say the experts. Either a civil war will erupt, or an increasing number of Jews will emigrate out of Israel, a trend that has already begun.

What will also happen – everyone agrees – is that the Palestinians will not emigrate out of the West bank no matter how harshly the army of occupation will continue treating them. Short of subjecting these people to mass starvation the way the Nazis did things during the Second World War, the Palestinians will overwhelm the Jews demographically. This is what the Israeli 'Situation' aims to remedy, thus create a fait accompli that cannot be reversed.

Elliot Abrams, Benny Avni and David Feith have called on the Congress to starve the Palestinians. By taking the American Congress as partner in this satanic crime against humanity, the Jews will gain a Palestine that's free of Palestinians. In addition, whereas the Americans will look in the eyes of history like murderous satanic zombies, the Jews will end up looking like angels, and will blame everything that went wrong – on the way to the fait accompli – on the brain dead Americans who didn’t know what they were doing.

A last Hurrah by ISIS and by Israel

The terrorist group that's ISIS is doing to its victims what the terrorist entity that's Israel is doing to its own victims with one exception. ISIS wants its victims to stay put so that it may establish a caliphate over which it wants to rule. As to Israel, it wants its Palestinian victims to get out of Palestine, thus make room for Jews to get in and make possible the creation of a Jewish kingdom it hopes will rule the world. Both use methods whose executions are different but whose visions are identical.

The ISIS method of operation rests on the message it gives to the world with its brutal and blunt activities. It is saying in effect: You've been treating us badly, and so we'll do to you what you've been doing to us because we believe in fighting fire with fire, and because we want you to feel what we feel. As to the Judeo-Israeli method of operation, it consists of running a Hate And Incitement Machine (HAIM) that recruits Christian feeble minds into a “foreign legion” of foot soldiers who would kill and die for the glory of their Jewish masters.

The tools and weapons that ISIS uses are those it captures from its enemies. As to the tools and weapons that HAIM uses; they are what it copies from its so-called friends. But don’t be fooled because those friends are really no friends of the Jews who view them and view the entire human race as antisemitic beasts. It is just that depending on what the Jews decide to do on a given day, they label some humans friends, and label other humans enemies. To make it all work, they wear the colors of the Left or those of the Right according to who they interact with at the time.

This means the Jews adopt the language of one side or the other depending on the circumstances, and communicate – not through the normal democratic process – but through the Jewish system of haggling. And this is how the foot soldiers of HAIM manage to appear as if they behave like normal human beings when in reality they are in the business of dispersing an insidious message that's the moral equivalent of a hard-to-detect poison gas.

Two articles illustrate how the Jews pave the way for the start of a new round of haggling, and how they use the method as a tool to motivate others to do what they will not do for themselves. One article came under the title: “Foreign Aid for Hamas,” written by Elliott Abrams and posted on August 10, 2016 on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations. The other came under the title: “How your tax dollars are funding Hamas' next terror war.” written by Benny Avni and published on August 9, 2016 in the New York Post.

It must be noted that until recently, the Jews in Israel were not required to do a thing to motivate the American Congress of foot soldiers – draftees in the service of the imagined Kingdom of Israel. That's because the Jews in America were able to carry on alone, and win every fight hands down. Things have changed, however, and this time Israel was forced to concoct an incident by which to give its high command in America the kind of ammunition with which to start a new fight, and carry on with the eternal Jewish struggle.

However, as if fate had conspired to create the perfect storm with which to stand up to terrorism, it happens that this time, the presidential election in America coincided with the degradation of the ISIS military prowess, and the decay of the Jewish narrative that used to give strength to HAIM's lobbying. This is why Abrams and Avni were called upon to participate in the attempt to rescue the collapsing Jewish hold on America.

Going through the two articles describing the Israeli concoction about an employee of the United Nations who is helping Hamas, you cannot help but feel that this is the last Judeo-Israeli hurrah; one that happens to coincide with the last hurrah let out by an ISIS trying to marshal its forces so as to pull off a spectacular terrorist act but failing to do so.

The most potent weapon in the hands of the Jews being the haggle disguised as democracy, you see how Elliott Abrams uses it by throwing the anti-Semitic accusation into the discussion twice: (1) “UNRWA has employees sympathetic to Hamas, and who engage in acts of anti-Semitism.” (2) “Hamas broadcasting all kinds of anti-Semitic hate … the failure to reform UNRWA”.

As to Benny Avni, he advocates the standard Jewish savagery of calling on the world to help starve the people who refuse to surrender to the Jews: “We can help by withholding funds from international aid groups.” So very savage, so very Jewish.

They still wish they had gotten the Money

Read Clifford D. May's column: “What does America owe Iran?” and then imagine (sit alone in a quiet place for a few minutes and) just imagine people as helpless as the Palestinians who are totally deprived of clout, trying to negotiate with the fully armed Jews the return of what they stole from them.

Be advised that May's column also came under the subtitle: “Debt to victims is more important than the government's claims.” It was published on August 9, 2016 in The Washington Times. Before you get to the end of the piece, you'll have gotten the feeling that trying to negotiate with these people is like talking to a wall made not of bricks but of mud and animal dung.

Having explained that to purchase military equipment from America “the Shah of Iran deposited $400 million into a Pentagon account [but] was overthrown soon after,” May goes on to say that the White House revealed “the equipment was not transferred and we didn't return Iran's money either.” And this is when Clifford May interjects with the scream: “Return the money to whom?”

He explains his interjection, but before I tell you about it; consider the following: A non-Jew converts to Judaism and instantly becomes a citizen of Israel. He goes to the West Bank of occupied Palestine under the protection of the American equipped Israeli army where he pushes a Palestinian family out of the property it has owned since the beginning of time, and takes the property. Why is he able to do that?

He is able to do it because the Jews argue that no matter to which ethnic or religious group one belongs, converting to Judaism gives him the Jewish identity that connects him to Palestine. He thus acquires all the rights and privileges of the “Jewish people,” including the unquestioned military, financial and diplomatic support that America bestows on this sort of crimes against humanity.

Now look at the explanation that Clifford May gives to justify the interjection ‘return the money to whom?’ Here is how he explains it: “At what point does the property of a government that has been toppled become the rightful possession of those who have done the toppling? International law is murky on this matter.” And there must be millions of Palestinians who are now interjecting: “By what logic does a convert to a religion acquire instant ownership of a property that has been in the hands of others since the beginning of time?”

Despite the fact that America unabashedly protects Jewish savagery in Palestine, including the demand that Palestinian leaders ought to sit with the Jews – deprived as they are of any clout – and negotiate the surrender of their country to a wall of mud and dung, America was wise enough not to use a similar logic on the Iranians. In fact, Clifford May cites the names of five American presidents who refrained from doing so.

Here is what he says in that regard: (1) “President Carter negotiated the Algiers Accord, agreeing that Iran's rulers would be granted immunity from criminal or civil penalties.” (2) “President Reagan could have revoked it but did not.” (3) “President Bill Clinton considered [but only so] using the $400 million to pay [those] who won judgments against Iran in U.S. courts.” (4) President George W. Bush could have reimbursed the Treasury using frozen Iranian funds. He did not. (5) President Obama boasted that the United States and Iran are settling an Iranian claim, and Iran will be returned its own funds, including appropriate interest but much less than the amount that Iran sought”.

Did you think for a moment that Clifford May would look at the word “interest” and not pull his hair off his skull? Well, maybe he didn't, but he did something else. He screamed: “Shouldn't there be some controversy over the notion of 'appropriate interest' – which is how the $400 million 'owed' to Iran rose to the $1.7 billion that is being paid?” In fact, there was controversy as shown in the saying: “less than the amount that Iran sought”.

If Clifford May and those in his organization cannot do the math that shows America negotiated a good deal for itself, here is how it is done: 1.7 billion divided by 400 million means that the principal grew to 4.25 times its original size. This happened over a 36-year period of compounded interest. You now take the 36^th root of 4.25, and that shows an annual compounded increase of 4.1 percent.

You know what. This barely covers the inflation that eroded the value of money over that period of time. It means that the Iranians got very little interest if any from America's investment of their money.

A has-been Empire sinking into Oblivion

When Britain ruled the waves and the sun never set on the Empire, every British institution was considered as good as Sterling. One of the institutions founded at the zenith of the British Empire was a magazine called the Economist.

Over the next century and a half, the Economist Magazine had risen to occupy the pinnacle of economic influence and political power in Britain, in all of its possessions, and in the places where English was spoken with or without an accent … and this was just about everywhere else in the whole world.

And then it happened that the sun began to set on the British Empire. The effect has been that all of its institutions began to diminish, including the Economist that could no longer influence even its protégés, such as the architects of the Hong Kong economy, for example. And could no longer influence the political decisions of the U.S. Congress, now a Jewish playground where they spoke not with a London accent but a Brooklyn accent.

This is when those of us who used to read the Economist on a regular basis began to detect a shift in the journalistic persona of the publication. The poor thing began to act like the little boy who just realized his mother's pregnancy means a brother or a sister was on the way, and will occupy mom's attention at his expense. And so, in a clear attempt to counter the Jewish influence in the Congress, the Economist now spoke forcefully about the need for America's legislators to dread the actions they were taking without thinking.

Worse, the editors began to understand there was more in mom's oven than the Jewish bun. It is that they began to see how the Lyndon Johnson effort to integrate the African Americans into the political culture of the nation was working. Johnson had called for a little “color” in the commercials shown on television and got more than he bargained for because color had seeped into the Congress as well. The editors guessed that from now on, not only Hanukkah was going to be observed on the Hill, so was Kwanza.

These things unfolded a number of decades ago. What you have now is an England that's entering its twilight years. As a United Kingdom, it voted to break away from a European Union that could have given it a new lease on life. In addition, parts of it are now expressing a desire to break away from it. There is a Scotland that wants to rejoin Europe, and there is a Northern Ireland that wants to join the Republic of Ireland. Someday, Wales may decide to develop a plan for itself as well.

Normally, the editors of the Economist would have fabricated a fake reason to throw a tantrum and lash out at the US Congress, thus prove they are still relevant despite what's happening to Britain and their publication. But things have changed so much there is nothing they can say about the Congress now without running afoul of political correctness. This is why they went looking for another whipping boy on which to beat up and get rid of their frustration. They found the Arabs, more specifically an Egypt that can take a ton of punches and not flinch.

And so they chose Egypt to be the subject of their latest creation. It came under the title: “The ruining of Egypt” and the subtitle: “Repression and the incompetence of Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi are stoking the next uprising,” published on August 6, 2016 in their Magazine.

What the article says and what it fails to say attest to the fact that the Magazine has produced a sick joke that will do to it what the Suez adventure did to the British Empire … it will hammer the last nail in its coffin. Here is what the Economist says: “Egypt's budget and current-account deficits are gaping. Mr. Sisi has gone beret in hand to the IMF for a $12 billion bail-out.” Well guys, that's what the IMF is there for.

Nations go to the IMF when they encounter a bottleneck that can be remedied with a bridge loan. The fact that Egypt went to it after 5 years of hesitation says that things are normal. How normal they are is gauged by the amount that Egypt is seeking. In fact, you can tell an eloquent story with the numbers. Here it is: Greece, which has less than one eighth the population of Egypt, required a $300 billion bailout. Translated to the Egyptian situation, it amounts to a $2.4 trillion bailout. That's trillion with a T. Thus, the $12 billion that Egypt is seeking makes it 200 times better off than Greece.

We now look at what the article has failed to say. The first thing that an economist worth his salt should do when contemplating the writing of an article of this nature, is to investigate three areas to answer one question: Is this economy in good shape but experiencing a temporary difficulty, or has it been seriously damaged?

The areas to investigate have to do with the basic necessities of life. (1) It is the availability of enough food to feed everyone. (2) It is the means to produce enough textiles to dress everyone. (3) It is the ability to produce enough building material to shelter everyone. The truth is that Egypt is more than self-sufficient in all three areas – so much so that it exports about $25 billion worth of foods, textile, building material, furniture, home appliances and electronics.

These areas represent the core of Egypt's domestic economy, which can survive on its own if the country were cut-off from the rest of the world. Wisely or foolishly, Egypt decided to go all out and integrate its economy with the rest of the world. This allowed it to earn another $35 billion in foreign currencies for a total of $60 billion with which to buy the raw material it does not have enough of, and the machinery it does not produce.

Those who argue the wisdom of opening to the world, point to the equipment that rendered Egypt's hospitals and research labs among the most advanced in the world. On the other hand, those who argue the foolishness of going all out integrating with the world, point to the bottlenecks that necessitate going to the IMF for a bailout.

That's the debate the Egyptians are having, and we must admit it is of a high caliber. As to the editors of the Economist, they'll have to decide if they want their publication to age gracefully and be respected, or throw a juvenile tantrum every time they feel they are getting no respect, thus earn contempt to boot.