The Real Two-State Solution: Add Copts to the Equation

The Israel-palestine conflict is seen from such a simplistic vantage point that it leads to a false dichotomy – One must understand the entirety of Middle-Eastern dynamics, not one localized aspect of them that has been divorced from all context.

Palestinians are simply arabs with a jihadist political agenda that draws them to the need for an ethnicity . They have no specific ethnic allegiance alone; the importance of their fight is to expand the islamic lands (“waqf) and implement sharia law. Before the decline of the Ottoman Empire, there was no distinction between arab ethnicities. Palestinians, like all muslim arabs, give their first allegiance to muslim ummah. They will never compromise, because a compromise requires both sides to make concessions; when dealt with as equals, muslims can only accept gains while giving nothing in return. This is also why Coptic Christians in the Middle-East are constantly persecuted by muslim arabs no matter if they share the same arbitrary ethnic identity – at best they live as de jure second-class citizens under the protection (or rather, at the mercy of) islamic law, where a blind eye is turned to their random – and not so random – victimization.


The argument against Israeli occupation ignores the fact that muhammaden arabs are occupying all land outside of the Arabian Peninsula. The importance of this is that there will never be a compromise in which some people are not displaced. Middle-Eastern Jews have been displaced and re-accepted by their own in Israel. Muslims choose not to accept their fellow muslim arabs because creating the “palestinian” as a political tool is far more important than the lives of their ‘brothers’.  Others should not bear the burden of the consequences that stem from of the selfish priorities of the wider arab and muslim world.

There is no possible compromise with mohammaden arabs. Their political identities are shallow adoptions that are easily cast off when it becomes politically expedient to do so. Asking Israel to accept one-sided peace would just allow arab muslims to keep playing a false victim role. According to the doctrines of shariah law, all ceasefires and truces with an enemy like Israel are only for the purposes of refreshing and rearming, and never are permitted with the intent of sincere settlement or peace. Muslims will only have peace according to their own unconditional terms – that the world submit to islam, and convert, pay the jizyah, or die.

Who are the faultless victims in the Middle-East?

The false dichotomy of “Jew and arab” ignores the plight of the nationless. Zoroastrians have almost been completely eradicated by muslims. Coptic Christians have no refuge from their torment and no homeland to defend them. Time and again they are butchered in Egypt, where they have no support or security. Apostates of islam are also left helpless and homeless in the Middle-East.

The real victims of Gaza are Copts, suffering in silence at the hands of their islamic, “palestinian,” “victimized” counterparts. This is paralleled across all islamic lands in which Christians reside as dhimmis under shariah law – they endure constant, unending persecution.

Looking at ethno-nationalism alone is the flaw of bleeding hearts on the right, who swallow palestinian propaganda, as the hypocritical anti-colonial claims of occupation seen with biased tunnel-vision works for the left. The Middle-East must be viewed in terms of theocratic tribal nationalism.

The real two-state solution will require both halves of the current paradigm to make concessions – a real compromise. The palestinian territories would be Israel’s contribution. Since arab muslims have not ever been willing to give anything up they must take a loss too. Jordan should be required to give up equal land as the west bank territory to be added to it in an actual compromise, likewise Egypt equal land for the Gaza strip. This two-state solution will give a homeland to Middle Eastern Christians as a safe refuge where they no longer have to live under another theocracy’s rule. Perhaps a Coptic government can choose to provide a safe refuge for other oppressed non-muslim populations, and islamic apostates as well.

The requirements of this compromise are quite reasonable when looking at the entirety of Middle-Eastern dynamics. It puts Israel’s objections over a two-state solution to rest because they won’t fear those lands will be used as a means of political jihad and continual attack.  Under current circumstances this is a valid safety concern as arab muslims under the palestinian pseudonym have made their intentions  – unceasing violence and escalation until Israel is destroyed – quite clear. The current wrong-headed debate will be shut down, as the security risk to Israel posed by jihad will be properly recognized when theocratic distinctions are added in to the discussion. Israel can give up responsibility for those territories – with equally added land from Egypt and Jordan to match them in compromise – because a Coptic christian country would pose no threat to them. If anything, this gives Israel an ally in the region and more importantly gives Middle-Eastern Christians a level of protection that they have not had, massacre after massacre.

This two-state solution is just, fair, and good; allowing arab islamists to play the victims for the aims of political jihad, while they slaughter the real silent victims, is a dishonorable travesty.

The Engineering of World Government, Part 2: Agribusiness Shift to Destabalize and Urbanize

The destruction of developing and Third-World countries’ ability to feed their people has been in the works for decades to motivate immigration invasions from these countries into the West. The least developed countries used to have an average of 36.7% of their GDP dependent on small farming, thus taking out their small farming completely destabilized those regions. A good example of this is the IMF loans given to Jamaica, which included requirements for opening up free trade with agribusiness there. Prior to this they were self-sustaining, but once agribusiness was able to flood their markets it ruined their family farms. The population began to urbanize and perform other work, which was short lived as a transitional phase to ease them into destruction by the globalists. The other IMF stipulations caused them to have too high of a minimum wage for their urban job market to be able to compete with Mexican sweat shops.


Mexico is another good example of this destabilization. Corn was the Mexican staple food, used for livestock, trade for other products in the world market, and to feed the poor masses with cheap tortillas. The Mexican Government used to subsidize its farmers to keep corn prices low, their masses fed, and their many small farms afloat. After Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Mexican government cut those subsidies. Mexican officials claimed that NAFTA would allow small farm work to be replaced by urban manufacturing work brought in by international corporations, which incidentally cut off the job market in Jamaica.


Haiti was also once self-sustaining thanks to their huge network of small rice farms. Haitians were able to feed their own people and even engage in trade with the world market until Bill Clinton worked hard to convince their government to improve its economy by ending tariffs and bringing in free trade with the West, aka agribusiness. He later apologized for this “mistake” (as if it were not intentional, like deregulating Glass-Steagall, or as above, signing NAFTA).


The American government not only maintained but increased corn subsidies to kill the competition of Mexican small farmers and drown out other South American sugar-based ethanol production with massive corn-based ethanol production. The high levels of subsidization for rice in America were used to put small farms out of business in Haiti, pushing people to urban areas. The problem with flooding agriculture markets in developing and third world countries is that once they lose the farms and urbanize there is no realistic way for them to build another type of economy to continue to buy food. Now these places are destabilized, urbanized, and unable to feed their people, resulting in chaotic masses who seek to emigrate.


To make all this possible, globalists first needed to shift American family farms into agribusiness. In the 1930s the US had over 6,000,000 family farms housing about 25% of the entire population. Original farm subsidies were given to help sustain those family farms and provide low cost food for the nation. This made the American Dream possible; healthy families and a growing economy were the nation’s top priorities. Over time this has been slowly shifted to favor agribusiness and drown out the family farms. By 1997, 72% of farm sales were contributed by 157,000 large farms and less than 2% of the nation resided on small farms. The entire process of this shift has been done in increments over the decades, and is too tedious and lengthy to catalog in this article. However, the last few bills are of importance and will be briefly covered.


Subsidies have been majorly funneled into a few key crops for the purpose of overproduction and to hit developing countries with lower costs than the rest of the global market. This process is called international dumping. Most US subsidies now go to feed grains (mostly corn) at 35.4%, cotton at 17.7%, rice at 14.1%, soybeans at 7.6%, and dairy at 3.7%. About 75% of the total subsidies now go to the biggest 10% of farming companies.

Agricultural lobbies not only contribute huge amounts of money to many political campaigns, but also have many ties to Monsanto. It is not a coincidence that the most subsidized crops are also the most heavily produced as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). According to the Center for Food Safety, 85% of corn, 91% of soybeans, and 88% of cotton produced in the United States are GMOs. Wikipedia dates this as a few years old, and since then it has been estimated that over 90% of corn in the US is now GMO.


“It has been estimated that living expenses for the average farm family exceed $47,000 per year. Clearly, many farms that meet the U.S. Census’ definition would not produce sufficient income to meet farm family living expenses. In fact, fewer than 1 in 4 of the farms in this country produce gross revenues in excess of $50,000.” -The EPA (whose recent leadership appointments are linked to Monsonto).


Government boards set subsidies for farmers, and most family farms, who do not get a proportionate subsidy and have to sell at higher prices, cannot compete with underwritten monocultures. These disproportionate payment allocations are another way of hurting small farmers. Since 1970 over 90% of the $578 billion in commodity payments has gone to farmers raising grains, yet they are only 1/5 of farm cash recipients. Small farmers are paid less while the market price of food increases, since the subsidies no longer help the average cost of food for citizens. This causes a vast increase in cost of living for the middle class, who fund this with their taxes. This pushes more people into the plebeian dynamic of hatred toward those who sustain them, and makes more people dependent on globalists for food welfare to be used as puppets of class warfare against the middle class. After the veil is lifted, the lower class masses will be dead weight to the globalists – just a means to an end.


The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 was introduced and pushed through the House and Senate by Democrats. G.W. Bush vetoed the act on May 21st, 2008, but the House of Representatives was ready for that and overrode it the same day. The Senate made it law the following day. It was a $288 billion 5-year agricultural policy bill that was a continuation of Clinton’s 2002 Farm Bill. Bush saw it as being too generous in subsidizing the wealthy and cutting small farmers out of the loop by not using reasonable profit caps and wanted to prevent this from happening. He vetoed it because of the negative impact it would cause on small and poorer farmers, but his respect for the limitations of the executive branch wouldn’t allow him to stop the legislative branch.


Monocultures have a negative effect on the environment in ways that traditional small farms don’t. Bee colony collapse disorder is one of the environmental crises that massive monoculture farming contribute to.. Fear and environmentalism are promoted so that people blame the wrong target and see globalists as the answer since they’re the ones sounding the alarm on this issue; most people just don’t realize that it was the globalists/leftists who created these environmental issues in the first place. This is part of why Section 9003 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 included a grant of $250 million to build commercial-scale bio-refineries to produce advanced bio-fuels. The money never seems to lead to anything of help for the environment, but it does help bleed the system dry through bureaucracy and makes those in support of globalism feel that they are trying to do something to combat a problem they see evil capitalists and Republicans as having created. It creates another environmental crisis, like that of the bee colonies, that once again brings strength to the side causing it with the “need for human (globalist) rights”. The left claims to champion environmentalism, but has created and sustains much of the negative impact that leftists themselves decry.


The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, signed into law by Obama, included provisions to extend portions of the 2008 Farm Bill so that Harry Reid would have time to introduce a new Farm Bill. Food assistance for lower-class urban areas was a part of the 2008 Bill that was extended along with subsidies. This spike in food assistance to the lower-class masses has been funded on the backs of the middle class along with all the above subsidization. The new Farm Bill passed in early 2014 is going to strategically cut off much of this food aid to capitalize off of the ensuing chaos as a means to push for “solutions” and once again apportion blame for the hunger on the globalists’ desired targets. This parallels what is done with foreign aid in countries they destabilize – during the transition to urbanization and unsustainability, and then on to the rapid plebeian expansion phase, they are fully funded in foreign aid, then when they want to cause an immigration invasion (or other chaos) to escalate, that aid is downsized greatly.


The Environmental Working Group estimates that 10,000 agribusiness policy holders (called “farmers”) already receive over $100,000 in subsidies annually, with some making over $1 million. On the other hand, the bottom 80% of mom-and-pop family farmers collect only an average of $5,000 annually. These are only estimates, since the laws themselves keep the allocations secret to the public for the “privacy” of farmers receiving funds. It is even more disgusting that an excuse for the immigration invasion is that cheap labor is needed for picking crops at huge monoculture agribusiness farms that are already making a killing in profits and subsidies off the backs of the American people. The Agricultural Act of 2014 also ended profit caps for single-crop subsidies, so as to finish agribusiness’ farm-land grab from regular citizens. Crop insurance has been changed to ease this transition for the time being, so that the last family farmers won’t cry out to awaken any that might see the whole of this dynamic in time. Price loss coverage is now given to farmers if prices drop to a certain point for the monocultures, so it is almost just as profitable for small farmers to underplant or even not plant at all. Agriculture risk coverage is for “shallow losses”: any losses not covered by the other insurance are compensated for, removing the risk of low or no-yield harvests and removing the incentive to even try. This Act is the final phase of the takeover, and thus the war of maneuvering (strategy 4 in part 1) will amp up. The world will see all kinds of built-up escalations in Eastern Europe, the Far East, and the Middle East start to unfold, so that any who could notice or oppose globalist efforts will be too distracted or die off in the conflicts.


Many of the solutions proposed for all of this mess are also premised on a globalist narrative. The work of Anuradha Mittal of India is very good at showing the impact against developing and Third-World countries, yet her solution is unknowingly what the globalists desire. She wrote that “human rights” are needed in order to solve all of this in her book “America Needs Human Rights”. That is the whole reason for all of this destabilization and urbanization: to establish World Authoritarianism via “human rights”. Notice now how the narratives of different groups all tell of “human rights”; it is now becoming normalized in people’s minds. Rights and responsibility are inseparable; giving the globalists the control of “human rights” is the exact effect they desired when they took away the world’s ability to be responsible for itself nation by nation. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization is already in partnership with the World Bank for “solutions” to these food crises and destabilizations they have created around the world. This has all been done as a covert attack on Western civilization, since Westerners pose the only threat to the global agenda; the developing world and its people are just tools of attack within demographic and economic shifts.

To be continued…