An Arab-Islamic perspective on Clinton vs. Trump

by philg

My recent Baltic Sea cruise included passengers from more than 50 countries. I was called over to a gathering of young Arabs, mostly Saudis and Kuwaitis, for my perspective on the upcoming U.S. Presidential election. Some of these folks I had met on various shore excursions and we’d talked about their time in the U.S. (generally at least four years of college). On the question of politics I gave my standard answer that I wasn’t following the candidates because my vote, as a citizen of Massachusetts, is not relevant. The consensus of the Saudi/Kuwaiti group was that Trump was bad because he might make it tougher for them to come to the U.S. and they perceived him as “anti-Muslim”. They liked Hillary even less, however, and asserted that, like most establishment politicians, she was controlled by the Rothschild family, whom they believed to be worth $350 billion (i.e., more than Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and Carlos Slim combined; Forbes, on the other hand, suggests that the family is worth in the single-digit billions; why would Rothschild family members break a sweat operating vineyards and selling wine if they are in fact worth $350 billion? You don’t see Carlos Slim-brand vino.).

9 thoughts on “An Arab-Islamic perspective on Clinton vs. Trump”

  1. The Rothschilds are worth significantly more than Forbes reports, by most accounts. However spread as it is across many countries and branches of the family it is no doubt difficult to determine an accurate number. In excess of $100Billion USD would be my guess.

  3. The wine business is really just a prestigious way to be in the real estate business.

  4. RE: Hillary controlled by the Rothschilds

    Welcome to the wonderful world of the Arab mindset, where even the richest (inherited and no-sweat wealth) parties feel being under pressure by eternal Jewish cabal—of which the Rothschilds is, of course, the poster family. As you managed to fraternize in peace with these your fellow cruise-brethren, did you by any chance conduct some informal polls among them on other than Jewish conspiracy themes? You should have carried a hidden audio recorder with you, capture everything they say in their tongues in your presence, and then have it translated to hear what they really thought of you when they thought you’d never get to hear it. Just a gear-up thought for you next cruise ;-))

    PS. Off-topic followup to the latter part of my comment in “Russian welfare: all cash” (now closed) topic. It’s not about Russia per se, but about life in the DDR, which was more like a mashup of Russian despotism and Teutonic dogmatism in brown-nosing fashion (end part of this essayistic book review): http://www.newenglishreview.org/Theodore_Dalrymple/Reading_Your_Stasi/

  7. Bruce, I couldn’t find these headphones-with-mics on the site, but perhaps nothing so intricate would be needed. Just train yourself to hold an iPhone in a suitable, unobtrusive way, and record the audio in this fashion… its mic is pretty sensitive already, and people do not react against handheld “familiar objects.” I know a current affairs cartoonist who uses this method for leads to his “Stan Mack Real Life Funnies” type (Village Voice) bi-weekly strips. He oscillates between a number of lunch places in a tony neighborhood, and says once have recorded an exchange in which his dialogue was discussed as to how true and spooky it sounded! (he made no strip out of this ;-))

    But what I was mostly thinking about was all the legit background sound recorded during filming of that Le Voyage de Lomama documentary, which, upon subsequent translation in post-production, revealed the tribal racism(?) of the sophisticatée high-caste African agent/ French-speaking handler/ translator towards her lowest-standing African Pygmy actor/ protégé/ meal ticket. It simply did not register with her that what she was saying could ever be heard by anyone else but her subordinate charge. The reveal really made that film.

  8. I would bet that the majority of donations (by dollar) were from Jews, so the conspiracy theory is largely accurate, though out of date on the details.

  9. There are people here with better grip on U.S. demographics than me, state by state, and the donations are public, so it shouldn’t be too hard to verify your claim. It seems unlikely that perhaps 3-4% of the population that identifies as Jewish in one form of another would be the biggest campaign donors to any candidate, but what do I know (ogling the two Jewish magazines The Forward, and The Tablet’s newsletters does not support that claim). But first, perhaps, define what you mean by a “Jew.”

    A Jew by birth; both parents; one parent; biologically Chinese, Peruvian, etc., but adopted by and brought up in the faith; by osmosis or association; by contamination? Moreover, besides the halachic one (=traditionally Orthodox Jewish religious: a person born by a Jew—i.e. who is the father doesn’t matter—or a officially admitted convert), there are AT LEAST 4 other well-entrenched social definitions of the Jew. They are:

    Heinrich Himmler: I decide who is the Jew (based on Nürnberg Laws where 1/32th of “Jewish blood” made one a Jew. Beyond that you were too diluted, though still might qualify for a KZ for associated reasons).

    Jean-Paul Sartre: Jew is who others say is a Jew (the bowdlerized English version; full length original French one almost justifies Anti-Semitism)

    Me: Moderator of this blog who deletes my comments.

    Jerzy Urban: Jew is whoever wears a fur coat in the elevator.

    So which donations-happy classes of the above had you, bjk, had in mind?

Comments are closed.