THE FUTURE NIGERIA
 The much of good can be attached to Nigeria; yet, not yet the worst can be related to her. Let me talk about her people. For whom do I write? I think I write on behalf of the millions of Nigerians without either a voice or the means to articulate their grievances. But I am flummoxed quite often by the so contrary disposition of this constituency, contrary to my generous expectations.
Western education or the lack thereof cannot explain the contradictions I see. A man should know their basic interest at least. Probably, the more sophisticated or, let me say, the latent, may escape public consciousness, and this can be excused. But how am I supposed to excuse betrayal? I should expect Nigerians to realize that we have made the society we live in. Does poverty make men foolish; or does it impart madness? I know that poverty can inject the virus of anger, and we are today witnesses to this. But a mixture of anger and foolishness hardly yields dividend. I believe that the story of Nigeria cannot be true without a chapter on the betrayal of courage.
We have lost (and still do) heroes to the opposing camp. Every hero lost does damage to the confidence the people have in the army of patriots that remain in the trenches. The opposing camp is the camp with supposedly delegated power to wrest for the people the right and means to live the dream of humanity on the planet of divinity. I know that desperation can be very deceptive not only for the individual but also for the people that place their hopes in the individual. When the opposing camp has won more converts than it has lost the future of that nation becomes much bleaker. Desperation for change and national redemption must diminish neither our perception of the price for our labour nor the danger of unequal yoking. When sincere zeal teams up with cunning pretentious resolve a nation loses her heroes; and no nation makes progress that kills off her heroes this way. It always remains true that evil communication corrupts good morals.
I am not against offering public service for public good. But when personal service to a sinking monarch or head of state is disguised in the garb of public service an insidious poison has been concocted. The hero must value his service and dispense it when certain minimal conditions are met, otherwise his service shall be trampled upon and he suffers loss. The next few years under the same leadership in Nigeria shall confer only damage. I see no sincerity in the present Nigerian government; for this the future is not bright. I see only darkness for the next few years unless the Nigerians pick up courage and pile pressure on Jonathan’s government to do what is right; and what is right is quite obvious:
1.       It is right to implement the recommendations of the KPMG report on the oil sector without the red herring of a Petroleum Revenue Special Task Force (PRSTF). Is it not the pressure uncommonly piled by Nigerians during the recent fuel subsidy removal protests that has brought to limelight the KPMG report that the Jonathan’s government had ignored for more than a year? The recommendations in the KPMG report substantially point to neglect of enforcement of existing laws. An insincere government would create all kinds of task forces and committees as lullabies to quieten agitations, and then push important public matters out of public consciousness. Nigerian heroes who have accepted to work in the PRSTF are on their own. There are already existing institutions such as the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), which has been given a mere representative role in the PRSTF, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and relevant committees of the National Assembly that can help enforce those recommendations if President Jonathan is sincere. The PRSTF is additional financial burden on the nation and a waste of our resources. Specific examples of infraction such as exaggerated margins of error that have cost Nigeria millions of US dollars have been captured in the report, yet, Jonathan is hiding behind a special task force. The lack of urgency in Jonathan’s actions is very suspicious. Was it not the same government that few days ago broached setting up a committee to review the KPMG report? We talk of building institutions; but how can we do so with this culture of task forces and ad hoc committees? By the way, has any good thing come out of such efforts? The lack of will of the government to enforce existing laws is the undoing of Nigeria! Failure of President Jonathan to fully implement the recommendations in the KPMG report will set him apart as a colossal disappointment. But I don’t see him doing that without sustained pressure by Nigerians.
2.       It is right to convoke a national conference to both define a socio-political structure for Nigeria that is socially just and financially prudent and establish a system of government that is less expensive and more representative of both our culture and ethnic nationalities. I have heard people, particularly at the charade recently organized by the “National Summit Group” at Sheraton hotel Lagos, disparage reference to “ethnic nationalities.” First, there is no Nigeria without its ethnic nationalities. I am yet to meet a man who takes umbrage to being called by his father’s name, who prefers to be called just a human being without a family. That would be a misnomer, wouldn’t it? I am first a Tiv man before I am a Nigerian, and I have no apologies to make for that. And any system in Nigeria that places the Tiv nation in a serious disadvantage is completely unacceptable to me. Secondly, I found it a joke that a conference to discuss Nigeria would be called by the National Summit Group (coordinated by mainly the South-South people such as Pat Utomi, Tony Uranta, and Annkio Briggs)without a formal invitation to the ethnic groups that make up Nigeria. I find difficult to place any stamp of seriousness and importance on a so-called national conference without a single Tiv man invited! President Jonathan and the National Assembly must find a way to call Nigerians of all ethnic nationalities to discuss the issues I have raised here and in quite a number of my essays on a sovereign national conference for Nigeria. I see no future for Nigeria without such a conference; and I say this advisedly. Nigeria has no time to waste with charades projected and sponsored by Jonathan’s cronies.
The isolation of few people for favours at the expense of the majority has not helped Nigeria. For instance, Niger Delta ex-militants do not constitute the Niger Delta. Jonathan’s silence in the face of continuing (if not worsening) destruction of that region by oil operators is indicative of the danger Nigeria faces—absence of leadership. The excuse that the Boko Haram menace is being influenced by “politicians who wanted power to return to the North” is balderdash! By the way, government is supposed to maintain security irrespective of the source of insecurity. Also, the claim by Jonathan’s government and its collaborators that Nigerians that went out to protest fuel subsidy removal were sponsored by “failed politicians” shows how out of touch with the people Jonathan is.
But Nigerians should learn a lesson; and I have written about this. Credible elections ipso facto do not guarantee good leadership. Nigerians made a choice and must learn to live with its consequences. In Adamawa state, the people “voted” for PDP few days ago as I write in spite of the debilitating consequences of its rule in the past years. Either the people are dumb and stupid or the election was rigged. And if the election was rigged and yet the people remained quiet, it must either be because of the massive presence of soldiers and the police that kept vigil on the roads in the state or because the people have “left the matter in God’s hands” (a very convenient refuge for the helpless). But a people deserves the leadership it has. The future of Nigeria will be shaped by Nigerians themselves one way or the other.

POTENTIATED 30% OF LIFE
💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰
When we die, our money remains in the bank...
Yet, when we are alive, we don't have enough money to spend.
In reality, when we are gone, there is still a lot of money not spent.
One business tycoon in China passed away. His widow, was left with $1.9 billion in the bank, and married his chauffeur.
His chauffeur said:-
"All the while, I thought I was working for my boss... it is only now, that I realise that my boss was all the time, working for me !!!"
The irony of reality is:
It is more important to live longer than to have more wealth.
So, we must strive to live a strong and healthy life, It really doesn't matter who is working for who.
In a high end hand phone, 70% of the functions are useless!
For an expensive car, 70% of the speed and gadgets are not needed.
If you own a luxurious villa or mansion, 70% of the space is usually not used or occupied.
How about your wardrobes of clothes?
70% of them are not worn!
A whole life of work and earning...
70% is for other people to spend.
So, we must protect and make full use of our 30%.
So with a matter of urgency,live ur life to d fullest.
Really,just think about it; there is nothing too serious to b too serious about life
👉Learn to let go, even if faced with grave   problems.
👉Endeavour to give in, even if you are in the right.
👉Remain humble, even if you are very rich and powerful.
👉learn to be contented, even if you are not rich.
👉Exercise your mind and body, even if you are very busy.
👉Make time for people you care about.
Remember,you live for others. Your extras can set ur neighbour on his feet.
So friend,look for someone to assist this week.If you think no one is available you know where to find me.
                                    ...VOA....

As everyone in America prepares to face the storm which is about to clear the thick dark cloud over American political firmament...
From my research work I have come to a single truth that the American political framework as designed has come to have a woman as president and now 2016 is the time.. So I tell you not as a prophet, or a seer but as a free thinker who has done his homework, I see mrs Clinton as the next US president. Is a script and I have read the script that is why I can boldly tell you categorically what the script says. The script states a woman as the next president and no matter what Trump does they will always use it against him.


.

BEYOND BLAME GAMES, WHAT NEXT FOR NIGERIA?2017

Agriculture is crucial for Nigeria’s recovery     
because Nigeria is presently in such a dreary situation and economic mess, everyone is looking for whom to blame, right from the ruling administration to the opposition, to concerned bodies, and also to the average citizens. Although someone has to take responsibility for the current mess, analysts believe this country has to move forward in her development process, to revive the economy and save millions of lives. After the blame games, what should be done next, to tackle this recession?
ABIMBOLA AKOSILE


* Every Nigerian is at fault therefore we must be wise, think positive, adjust our lifestyle and do what will make us happy. To be joyful in the mist of challenge is the key to victory.
– Mrs. Moses Adetoun, Ogun State


* I believe soon this mess will be over as PMB is on top of the recession issue to find lasting solution to it. Nigerians should have patience with the government; after all 2019 is general elections and their performances will determine their fate for second term. APC government should sit up for governance rather than giving excuses for 17 months in leadership.
– Mrs. Ijeoma Nnorom, Lagos State


* Backward integration with Discipline: My tip is for Nigeria to turn inwards and focus on what we can produce from resources within Nigeria (human & non-human) to first meet our needs and for export. However, as a people we must first curtail our lavish tastes and habits, cut off excesses and be pragmatic. Agriculture is one way to go and Nigerians are already looking in that direction. Harness the resourcefulness of ages 18-45, they are the bedrock of our future successes as a nation. Our young people have shown and developed a knack for technology innovations; we should build on that. All these will work if the public and private sectors form a partnership, with Nigeria’s good as the focus of the partnership.
– Mr. Utibe Uko, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State


* In the short term, bring in technocrats and experts to help. There is also the need to take concrete steps to diversify the economy. In the long term, a political solution must be sought by restructuring how the country is being governed and by doing this, the economy will be impacted upon. Our economic problems cannot be isolated from our political problems.
– Mr. Pacer Aderinkomi, Surulere, Lagos State


* Adjust our policies and strategies to suit the prevailing challenge mitigating against Nigeria now. More food must be produced, stored and equitably marketed to the average citizen. Improve on our immigration policies and reforms. Modern trend of events demand that we go back to our drawing board and re-strategise proactively. Nigeria must wake up now.
– Miss Apeji Patience Eneyeme, Badagry, Lagos


* Unity. Nigeria is a blessed country with abundant human and natural resources. Our problem is that of selfishness, tribalism, ethnicity, religion e.t.c. If these differences are shelved and we can see others as ourselves, then what else, if this will not ensure greater development? We truly need to unite and become the envy of other nations, rather than laughing stock.
– Hon. Babale Maiungwa, U/Romi, Kaduna


* Beyond the usual blame game, the federal government must show true signs of leadership in solving the problems of this nation. There is no point in blaming someone for a problem if you cannot fix it yourself. PMB has to walk the talk and deliver answers now; Nigerians are nearly fed up! He needs to jail some sacred cows and listen to what the economic experts in his team are saying, to move the country forward. Also, the president needs to re-jig his cabinet; some of his ministers are not performing to expectations, simple truth.
– Mr. Olumuyiwa Olorunsomo, Lagos State


* The major area I want them to solve is the power sector because it would create jobs. Change begins with all of us as citizens of Nigeria. We must hold our political representatives accountable, with crusade against corruption and lawlessness as well as demand for good governance and discipline as a conduct by all.
– Mr. Feyisetan Akeeb Kareem, Coordinator, CDHR, Aniocha South, Delta State


* Start by doing what is necessary, then what is possible, and suddenly you are doing the impossible.
– Mr. Ezenwa Chika, Ikeja, Lagos


* The solution of each government is to identify problems or mistakes, proffer solution and never ignore sound advice that will move our country forward from political opponents. Grievances of Nigerians should not be allowed to accumulate; it should be treated at once. The time of apportioning blame, excuses should be seen as now over, for any serious economic team aiming in that direction. We still believe this government can still make the needed change in that direction.
– Mr. Dogo Stephen, Kaduna


* Let some seasoned experts and successful entrepreneurs be invited to a one-week economic retreat to brainstorm on Nigeria’s economic problems and proffer solutions. Let them come up with a report not more than 12 pages to be submitted within one week. Then the President should set up a special economic committee with some of those who can take part in the retreat to be co-opted for implementation. Let them be given massive power backed with resources to turn around the economy within two years.
– Mr. Ore Aderinkomi, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos


* Nigeria must be restructured now; diversify the economy, stop nepotistic agenda and appoint technocrats into the economic team. Until PMB is sincere in his fight against corruption, change will remain a mirage. There is the budget padding scandal which he cried out against before; and also the INEC under PMB is a total failure. Edo poll is an eye-opener to Nigerians. Which way Nigeria?
– Pst. Obinna Osagu, Akure, Ondo State


* Blame games are worst methods to resolve the current cancerous challenges progressively ravaging our socio-economic system and citizenry. We need honesty, unity and de-politicisation of our governance, economy e.t.c. Our policies and strategies must be overhauled and refined now. Research, energy and agriculture need special attention. Mass approach is dangerous, non-proactive and failure-prone; it must be one thing at a time basis for progress. Countries that survived recession previously re-strategised and thus succeeded.
– Mr. Apeji Onesi, Lagos
THE RESPONSE
Top tip: Change poor policies
 Second: Diversify the economy
 Third: Prioritise agriculture
 Radical tip: Re-jig the cabinet!
 Total no of respondents: 13
 Male: 10
 Female: 3
 Highest location: Lagos (7)
Next Week: Has Corruption Level Truly Reduced in Nigeria?
Although the present administration made the fight against corruption one of its cardinal aims in bringing change to governance, many analysts still believe the level of corruption in the country has not really abated. With many high-profile corruption cases yet unsolved; reports of stupendous earnings by former governors turned national assembly members, and accusations of selective anti-corruption war, some believe there are no real yardsticks to show corruption has gone down in Nigeria. Is this true or not? What more can PMB do?
Please make your response direct, short and simple, and state your full name, title, organisation, and location. Responses should be sent between today ..voavictor@yahoo.com ,

NIGERIA IN THE MAKING OF A STRONGER ECONOMY
California is the 6th largest economy in the world. It's economy is larger than that of France or Brazil. The little problem is that California is not a country. It is a State in the United States of America. It has little offshore oil, yet its economy is larger than States in the US that are famous for their oil reserves, like Texas. California generates much of its revenue from non-oil products. It found a way to absorb and domesticate much of the intellectual output from its premier university, Stanford University, into saleable products within its economy.
As a matter of fact, much of California's economy is built around Stanford University. So with this, Silicon valley developed. I'm sure you've heard of Silicon Valley at least once in your life. Now with Silicon Valley came companies like Apple, eBay, Cisco, Lockheed, Hewlett Packard (HP), Google, Netflix, Facebook, Oracle, Tesla...and the list goes on and on ad infinitum.These are multibillion-dollar companies. The yearly budget of any one of these companies might be larger than the entire yearly budget of, say for example, Akwa Ibom State. I'm taking about companies that are richer than countries. They are all in California. But that is just in the technology industry where the technologies and inventions spewing out of Stanford are caught midair and converted to money spinning enterprises.
But there is also the entertainment industry in California. Yes, Hollywood is in California. The US movies industry contributes about $504Billion to USA's GDP. Hollywood, as you know, contributes over 70% of that figure. Most iconic movie studios are in Hollywood. As a matter of fact, the "Big Eight" consisting of 20th Century Fox, Columbia Pictures, MGM (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer), Paramount Pictures, RKO Radio Pictures, United Artists, Universal Studios and Warner Bros are, or were, all in Hollywood. These again, are multi-billion dollar companies generating revenue for California.
Despite the above, California also thrives on agriculture. As at 2014, California had nothing less than 77,000 farms and ranches raking in about $55Billion in revenue yearly. It produces over 400 agricultural commodities, a large chunk of which it exports. It is the leader in producing exotic fruits in America. Its wine industry is unique. California wine is drunk with relish the world over. I used to drink some too.
This is just one State in America. You see, California actually had a choice of sitting back and striving to get a piece of the revenue generated from Texas' oil. It could have depended solely on Federal allocation to survive so that every month end, it will send its Commissioner of Finance to Washington DC to receive monthly allocation so that it can barely pay salaries of its workers and nothing more. Then San Francisco would resemble Ajegunle in Lagos. And there certainly would not be those beautiful sights and sounds that make California what it is today. But No, not California. Not America. California gives to the center and, because of its wealth, despises the idea of depending on it for survival. The Federal Government actually needs California to survive, not the other way round.
You see, America is structured in such a way that States must look inwards to exploit their wealth for the good of its citizens. There is no free lunch for the lazy States. There certainly is no commonwealth. But there is your wealth, if you can create it. Under American Federalism, you are the captain of your ship. But again, you are also the waves upon which the ship will sail. That is America. The local government, the government closest to the grassroot, is deliberately made the strongest level of government. Items like Variances (adaptation of state law to local conditions,) Public works (yes, public works!!), Contracts for public works, Licensing of public accommodations, Assessable improvements, Basic public services are all left for local county governments to handle. The State handles weightier matters like Property law, Education,Commerce laws of ownership and exchange, Banking and credit laws, Labour law and professional licensure, Insurance laws, and Electoral laws, including parties and Civil service laws. Items that the Federal Government, the center, handles affecting the States, are actually very negligible.  
Nigeria on the contrary will never do well unless we restructure. We pretend to have a Federal system but we are actually operating a unique form of unitary government, and it is weighing the polity down. Can you imagine a country where the school curriculum is regulated by a national central body and states have no powers to vary or amend their curriculum? So, if the rest of the developed world is light years ahead in what they teach their children from primary schools, and our Minister of Education has absolutely no clue, the States must be burdened with antiquated school curriculum until such a time (if we are lucky, before rapture perhaps!!) that we have an Education Minister who would realise how far behind we are and bring the curriculum up to date. Just take a look at the science curriculum for grade students in advanced countries and you would cry for Nigeria. I recently read of a high school in Japan which has amended its curriculum to include robotics and drones technology. IN HIGH SCHOOL!! But our Professors here don't have a hang on Robotics even! Students are still taught the very prehistoric rudiments of physics and chemistry in our schools. And this is even in the few schools that teachers and students still meet in the classrooms! For the few public schools that are lucky to have labs, all you see are miserable nameless creatures trapped in formalin, to which nobody ever pays attention. These creatures suffer a double jeopardy having suffered the first misfortune of being caught and preserved in formalin in Nigeria, and then thereafter completely ignored, even in death! And because the control of our curriculum is central, there is nothing potentially proactive or progressive-minded States can do about this.
You would think this is not a problem until you understand that Nigerians spend over ONE TRILLION NAIRA every year to study abroad, despite there being over 100 tertiary institutions in Nigeria. Not one is deemed good enough. You see, the reason why you have Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Oxford, etc is not only for academic excellence of the citizens of the countries which have these schools. No. They invest in their institutions so that they can earn revenue from foreign students from countries like Nigeria which has destroyed its educational system. Abroad, schools are so important to society that the economy, business and lifestyle of whole cities and even States completely depend on or revolve around schools. What would the city of cambridge be without Cambridge University. Or Cambridge, Massachusett without Harvard University. These cities depend on these universities to survive. And imagine that Nigeria had invested in its universities and was earning $1billion dollars a year from foreign students seeking to study here, who would be fighting over oil in the Niger Delta? How many car manufacturing companies would we have in Owerri near FUTO where students are constantly doing and selling their research products to burgeoning engineering and manufacturing companies? Recently, three students in Sweden conducted research and came up with a product that could improve wear and tear on tyres. The product became so successful that Volvo had to partner with these students to patent the product. Now when this product hit world stage, can you imagine how much revenue sweden would earn from these product? Do your research, most of the world-class products we buy today off the shelf, at great cost, were invented by university students. As you are reading this, do not forget that without Harvard University, there would not have been facebook, and this our interface would have been impossible.
But our students In Nigeria are not entirely without inventions. We invented the Pyrates Confraternity, the Black Axe, the Eiye, the Vikings and what not!! Students resume school with guns and bullets, rather than books and scholastic ideas, as though academic institutions were a war college. Lecturers fly colors as do students. And when the turf war begins, people die in droves. But States can do nothing about this because some of these institutions are controlled by the Federal Government. Even for the ones controlled by States, you still can't do much because the security apparatus is controlled by the Federal Government. The Federal Government will provide or withdraw security from the State, depending on whether it is happy with the sitting Governor. So every year, all sorts of characters are vomited from Nigerian Universities to take their place in Nigerian society. So you have Judges, Lawyers, Engineers, Doctors and so forth whose first and primary allegiance is to their cult group, before the Country. The multiplier effect of this, is a treatise for another day.   
But suffice to say that as long as this problem persist, let's forget about Silicon Valley in Nigeria, because there will never be a Stanford University here to provide an infinite supply of ideas and prodigies to feed the invention value-chain!
Nigeria cannot wake up from its slumber today because it cannot lift its head. The entire weight of its existence is concentrated in its head. From the viewpoint of government, the weight is In Abuja. From the viewpoint of revenue source, the weight is in the Niger-Delta. We need to urgently restructure and evenly distribute this pressure points and weights to diffuse tension in Nigeria.
We need to revisit the exclusive legislative list in the constitution and systematically reduce the responsibilities of the Federal Government vis-a-vis the States. Resources have to be handed back to the States that generated them but place an obligation on each States to contribute an agreed percentage to the common federal purse to service obligations of the Federal Government. There is no reason Education, Policing, Prisons (only people convicted of federal offenses should go to federal prisons!!), Ports, Inland waterways, natural minerals, even marriage (yes, english form of marriage!!) and so many other items should be the concern of the Federal Government.We will never develop with such weight that weigh us down at the center. Nigeria can never raise its head in the comity of nations because of the sheer weight of the head.
There is more to say, but scarcely any time. But to emphasis the point i've been laboring to make, shall i say again that there is absolutely no reason or need to fight for oil in the Niger-Delta. There are so many things that can bring more revenue to States in Nigeria than oil. South Africa has no oil, but it has Gold, and is richer than Nigeria. Let us fight for a system that will promote both equality and equity.

SEE THE HANDWRITNG ON THE WALL.. Why Nigerian economy went into recession..
I still find it funny that most people don't know why Nigeria economy went into recession, they love the incompetent lies of Lai Mohammed about the past government ruining everything. It's also myopic to think that if Jonathan were to still be in power, we would be worse off.
The truth about Nigeria's recession is this; it was caused by the president's unguided rhetoric and uncultured body language.
Firstly, there is nothing we are buying today that we weren't buying 5 years ago, therefore it's not our purchase that put pressure on Naira but withdrawal of funds by foreign investors.
After the election, the president created instability with his unguided statements about how everyone is corrupt and how everyone is going to jail. The instability made foreign investors to liquidate their investment and change their money to dollars. In the process of trying to flee, they were willing to buy dollars at any price, which lead to high exchange dollar rate.
Even though some of them were not ready to run away, but want their money in dollars to save their investments from devaluation, the president gave a bad signal by banning deposit of foreign currency into domiciliary accounts. That was enough for free market believers to see the draconian handwriting on the wall, that was the beginning of dollar rush.
To make matters worse, the president came up with another outrageous policy of rationing dollar to certain sectors and blocking many sectors out. That was the nail in the coffin which facilitated the emergence of free FALL.
In the end, foreign investors took over $80B out of the economy within a short period and everything went down to free fall.
To those who believe it will be worse if Jonathan is still there, you are all wrong. Policy continuity and political stability will not let billions of dollars leave our shores within such tiny time frame. Even though the government might have income shortage, the private sector will weather the storm by their confidence in the market.
The fear of the unknown created by president M. Buhari is responsible for the economic downturn not low oil price. Interest rate in America is currently at 0.5% while it is 12% in Nigeria. JP Morgan Chase will not mind borrowing $50 billion from Feds at 0.5 and put in Nigeria for return of %2000 profit. Citi bank will do the same, likewise US Bank Corp.
Chase gave Buhari warning about the repercussions of his fixing policy before they pulled out, but his illiterate cyber warriors and miss educated e-soldiers said JPMORGAN can go to hell, they no longer believe in economic metrics since their messiah is in charge. Funny enough they are all suffering today because of the stupid policy, but they find relief by blaming it on past administration and Gucci appetite of average Nigerians.
For your information, if your president "kontunu" with his unguided rhetoric, Naira will go down to N1000/1 $. But we thank God, he is not longer talking.

*VERY INTERESTING INFORMATION*
A short time ago, Iran's Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khomenei urged the Muslim World to boycott anything and everything that originates with the Jewish people.
One response, Meyer M. Treinkman, a Pharmacist, out of the kindness of his heart, offered to assist them in their boycott as follows:
"Any Muslim *who has Syphilis must not be cured by Salvarsan,* discovered by a Jew, Dr. Ehrlich. 
He *should not even try to find out whether he has Syphilis, because the Wasserman Test is the discovery of a Jew.*
If a Muslim *suspects that he has Gonorrhea, he must not seek diagnosis, because he will be using the method of a Jew named Neissner.*
"A Muslim *who has heart disease must not use Digitalis, a discovery by  a Jew, Ludwig Traube.*
Should *he suffer with a toothache, he must not use Novocaine, a discovery of the  Jews, Widal and Weil.*
If a Muslim *has Diabetes, he must not use Insulin, the result of research by Minkowsky, a Jew.* 
If one *has a headache, he must shun Pyramidon and Antypyrin, due to the Jews, Spiro and Ellege.*
Muslims *with convulsions must put up with them because it was a Jew, Oscar Leibreich, who proposed the use of Chloral Hydrate.*
Arabs *must do likewise with their psychic ailments because Freud, father of psychoanalysis, was a Jew.*
Should *a Muslim child get Diphtheria, he must refrain from the “Schick" reaction which was invented by the Jew, Bella Schick.*
"Muslims *should be ready to die in great numbers and must not permit treatment of ear and brain damage, work of Jewish Nobel Prize winner, Robert Baram.*
They should *continue to die or remain crippled by Infantile Paralysis because the discoverer of the anti-polio vaccine is a Jew, Jonas Salk.*
"Muslims *must refuse to use Streptomycin and continue to die of Tuberculosis because a Jew,  Zalman Waxman, invented the wonder drug against this killing disease.*
Muslim *doctors must discard all discoveries and improvements by dermatologist Judas Sehn Benedict, or the lung specialist, Frawnkel, and of many other world renowned Jewish scientists and medical experts.*
"In short, *good and loyal Muslims properly and fittingly should remain afflicted with Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Heart Disease, Headaches, Typhus, Diabetes, Mental Disorders, Polio Convulsions and Tuberculosis and be proud to obey the Islamic boycott."*
Oh, and by the way, *don't call for a doctor on your cell phone because the cell phone was invented in Israel by a Jewish engineer.*
Meanwhile I ask, *what medical contributions to the world have the Muslims made?"*
The *Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000;* that is
ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION *or 20% of the world's population.* They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
*Literature:*
1988 - Najib Mahfooz
*Peace:*
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1990 - Elias James Corey
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1999 - Ahmed Zewai
*Economics:*
(zero)
*Physics:*
(zero)
*Medicine:*
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad
*TOTAL: 7 SEVEN*
*The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000;* that is FOURTEEN MILLION or about *0.02% of the world's population.* They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
*Literature:*
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer World
*Peace:*
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin
*Physics:*
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger
Economics:
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel
Medicine:
1908 -Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
1996- Lu RoseIacovino
*TOTAL: 129!*
The Jews *are NOT promoting brainwashing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non-Muslims.*
The Jews *don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants.*
There is *NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church.*
There is *NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people.* 
The Jews *don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.*
Perhaps the world's Muslims *should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.*
Muslims must ask *'what can they do for  humankind'* before *they demand that humankind respects them.*
Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel 's part, the following two sentences really say it  all:
*If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.*  *If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel."* Benjamin Netanyahu:  General Eisenhower warned us.
It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps, he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead. He did this because he said in words to this effect:  *'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the road of history, some bastard will get up and say that this never happened'*
Recently, the UK debated whether to *remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offends' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred.* It is not removed as yet.  *However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.*
It is now more than 65 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, *claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.*
This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people. 
*Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.*
How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center *'NEVER HAPPENED'* because *it offends some Muslim in the United.. States?*

A Few Kind Words about the Most Evil Man in Mankind’s History

by George H. Smith

Smith explains some fundamental features of Immanuel Kant’s moral and political theory.
Since several of my previous essays have been linked to Rand’s moral condemnation of Immanuel Kant (1724-1802), especially her infamous remark that Kant was “the most evil man in mankind’s history” (The Objectivist, Sept. 1971), I thought I would write a conciliatory essay or two about the moral and political theory of this villainous character whose evil supposedly exceeded that of the most murderous dictators in history. (The source of direct quotations from Kant are indicated by initials. See the conclusion of this essay for bibliographic details.) 
My intention is not to defend Kant’s moral theory (I have serious disagreements) but to summarize some of its important features in a sympathetic manner. By this I mean that even though I reject a deontological (duty-centered) approach to ethics, I find Kant’s moral theory at once fascinating and highly suggestive, containing ideas that can be modified and then incorporated into a teleological (goal-directed) approach to ethics.
Kant’s first two major works on moral theory—Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785) and Critique of Practical Reason (1788)—might be described today as treatments of metaethics rather than of moral theory as many people understand that label. They are metaethical in the sense that they are largely devoted to the meanings of moral terms, such as “duty” or “obligation,” an explanation of why we may say that ethical principles are rationally justifiable, and the proper methodology of moral reasoning. If these works offer little in the way of practical maxims, this is because they focus a good deal on Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which is a purely formal principle without any specific material content. The Categorical Imperative per se does not prescribe particular goals that people should or should not pursue. Rather, it mandates that moral maxims and general principles must be universally applicable to every rational being before they can qualify as authentically moral in character. As Kant wrote:

The categorical imperative, which as such only expresses what obligation is, reads: act according to a maxim which can, at the same time, be valid as a universal law.—You must, therefore begin by looking at the subjective principle of your action. But to know whether this principle is also objectively valid, your reason must subject it to the test of conceiving yourself as giving universal law through this principle. If your maxim qualifies for a giving of universal law, then it qualifies as objectively valid.  (DV, p. 14.)
In other words, the Categorical Imperative is a formal principle of universalizability, a fundamental test that normative maxims and principles must first pass before they can qualify as rationally justifiable. (When Kant spoke of a moral law, he was drawing an analogy between the Categorical Imperative and the physical laws of nature. Just as there are no exceptions to the physical laws of nature, so there should be no exceptions to this fundamental law of morality.) Here is how Robert J. Sullivan explained the point of the Categorical Imperative in his excellent book Immanuel Kant’s Moral Theory (Cambridge, 1989, p. 165):

Kant calls this formula the “supreme principle of morality” because it obligates us to recognize and respect the right and obligation of every other person to choose and to act autonomously. Since moral rules have the characteristic of universality, what is morally forbidden to one is forbidden to all, what is morally permissible for one is equally permissible for all, and what is morally obligatory for one is equally obligatory for all. We may not claim to be exempt from obligations to which we hold others, nor may we claims permissions we are unwilling to extend to everyone else.
In “Causality Versus Duty” (reprinted in Philosophy Who Needs It) Ayn Rand launched an all-out assault on the concept of “duty,” calling it “one of the most destructive anti-concepts in the history of moral philosophy.” She objected to the common practice of using “duty” and “obligation” interchangeably, explaining what she regarded as significant differences and making some excellent points along the way. It should be understood, however, that Kant did not draw this distinction. For him “duty” and “moral obligation” are synonymous terms, so if the term “duty” jars you while reading Kant, simply substitute “moral obligation” and you will understand his meaning.
I regard “Causality Versus Duty” as an excellent essay overall (philosophically considered), but, predictably, Rand drags in Kant as the premier philosopher of duty and then distorts his ideas.
Now, if one is going to use another philosopher as a target, one should at least make an honest and reasonable effort to depict the ideas of that philosopher accurately. But Rand shows no indication of having done this. According to Rand, for example, “The meaning of the term ‘duty’ is: the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire, or interest.” The problem with Rand’s definition of “duty” is not simply that it does not apply to Kant’s conception of duty but that it directly contradicts it. Even a cursory reading of Kant’s works on moral theory will reveal the central role that autonomy played in his approach. By “autonomy” Kant meant the self-legislating will of every rational agent; and by this he meant, in effect, that we must judge every moral principle with our own reason and never accept the moral judgments of others, not even God, without rational justification. Rand’s claim that duty, according to Kant, means “obedience to some higher authority” is not only wrong; it is fundamentally antithetical to Kant’s conception of ethics. This is clear in the opening paragraph of what is probably Kant’s best-known essay, “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?”

Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! “Have courage to use your own understanding!”—that is the motto of the enlightenment. (WE, p. 41.)
Some of Rand’s statements about Kant are largely accurate, as we see in this passage:

“Duty,” he holds, is the only standard of virtue; but virtue is not its own reward: if a reward is involved, it is no longer virtue. The only motivation, he holds, is devotion to duty for duty’s sake; only an action motivated exclusively by such devotion is a moral action (i.e., performed without any concern for inclination [desire] or self-interest.
Kant believed that moral virtue will make one “worthy of happiness” and thereby foster a sense of what Kant called “self-esteem.” Curiously perhaps, in Galt’s Speech Rand used the same phrase (“worthy of happiness”) in relation to self-esteem. But Rand was correct insofar as Kant denied that these and other possible consequences should constitute the motive of one’s actions. Kant held that we should follow the dictates of duty unconditionally, that is, without regard for the consequences of our actions, whether for ourselves or others.
A major problem with Rand’s treatment of Kant in “Causality Versus Duty” is she harps on his defense of moral duty without ever mentioning the Categorical Imperative, which is the centerpiece of Kant’s moral philosophy. As we have seen, the Categorical Imperative is not some nefarious demand that we obey the dictates of God, society, or government. Rather, it is a purely formal requirement that all moral principles must be universalizable. The Categorical Imperative is a dictate of reason that our moral principles be consistent, in the sense that what is right or wrong for me must also be right or wrong for everyone else in similar circumstances. Kant is often credited with three basic formulations of the Categorical Imperative, but he framed the principle differently in different works, and one Kantian scholar has estimated that we find as many as twenty different formulations in his collected writings. There are many such problems in Kant’s writings, and these have led to somewhat different interpretations of the Categorical Imperative, as we find in hundreds of critical commentaries written about Kant. Although I am familiar with all of Kant’s major writings on ethics, I do not qualify as a Kantian scholar, so I do not feel competent to take a stand on which particular interpretation is correct. But his basic point is clear enough, and it was nothing less than philosophical malpractice for Ayn Rand to jump all over Kant’s defense of duty (or moral obligation) without explaining his Categorical Imperative. Indeed, to my knowledge Rand mentioned the Categorical Imperative only once in her published writings. In For the New Intellectual, she claimed that Kant’s Categorical Imperative “makes itself known by means of a feeling, as a special sense of duty.” This is absolutely false, a claim that Kant protested against explicitly. He insisted that the duty to follow the Categorical Imperative—i.e., our moral obligation to apply moral judgments universally and consistently—is a logical implication of our “practical reason,” not a feeling at all.
I shall go into greater detail about Kant’s Categorical Imperative (especially its political implications) in my next essay, but before drawing this essay to a close I wish to make a few brief observations about Kant’s attitude toward happiness. From reading Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, or some other Objectivist philosophers on Kant, one can easily come away with the notion that Kant was a champion of selflessness, altruism, or perhaps something even worse. This misleading interpretation is based on Kant’s argument that moral actions should not be motivated by a desire for happiness, whether for ourselves or for others. The following passage by Kant is typical:

The maxim of self-love (prudence) merely advises; the law of morality commands. Now there is a great difference between that which are advised to do and that which we are obligated to do.” (CPR, pp. 37-8.)…..A command that everyone should seek to make himself happy would be foolish, for no one commands another to do what he already invariably wishes to do….But to command morality under the name of duty is very reasonable, for its precept will not, for one thing, be willingly obeyed by everyone when it is in conflict with his inclinations. (CPR, 38.)
Kant’s opposition to happiness as a specifically moral motive was based on his rather technical conception of ethics, and on his distinction between moral principles and prudential maxims. He believed that the maxims that will lead to happiness vary so dramatically from person to person that they cannot be universalized and so do not qualify as general moral principles. The actions that will make me happy will not necessarily make you or anyone else happy. For this and other reasons, Kant argued that happiness cannot provide a stable moral motive for actions but must depend on the prudential wisdom of particular moral agents. Egoists like Ayn Rand will obviously object to Kant’s views on this matter, and, in my judgment, there are good reasons for doing so. But it would be a serious error to suppose that Kant was somehow anti-happiness. On the contrary, Kant repeatedly asserted that personal happiness is an essential component of the good life.  According to Kant, reason allows “us to seek our advantage in every way possible to us, and it can even promise, on the testimony of experience, that we shall probably find it in our interest, on the whole, to follow its commands rather than transgress them, especially if we add prudence to our practice of morality.” (DV, p. 13.) “To assure one’s own happiness is a duty (at least indirectly)….”(GMM, p. 64.) But happiness will not serve as a motive or standard of moral value because “men cannot form under the name of ‘happiness’ any determinate and assured conception.”
Nevertheless, the “highest good possible in the world” consists neither of virtue nor happiness alone, but “of the union and harmony of the two.” (TP, p. 64.) Kant made a number of similar statements in various works, as when he wrote that the “pursuit of the moral law” when pursued harmoniously with “the happiness of rational beings” is “the highest good in the world. (CJ, p. 279.)
Kant’s highly individualistic notion of the pursuit of happiness—the very fact that disqualified it as a universalizable moral motive—was a major factor in his defense of a free society in which every person should be able to pursue happiness in his own way, so long as he respects the equal rights of others to do the same. Jean H. Faurot (The Philosopher and the State: From Hooker to Popper, 1971, p. 196) put it this way.

[Kant] thought of society as composed of autonomous, self-possessed individuals, each of whom is endowed with inalienable rights, including the right to pursue happiness in his own way…. There is, according to Kant, only one true natural (inborn) right—the right of freedom.
As Jeffrie G. Murphy explained in Kant: The Philosophy of Right (1970, p. 93):

[Kant’s] ideal moral world is not one in which everyone would have the same purpose. Rather his view is that the ideal moral world would be one in which each man would have the liberty to realize all of his purposes in so far as these principles are compatible with the like liberty for all.
According to Kant, the “first consideration” of a legal system should be to insure that “each person remains at liberty to seek his happiness in any way he thinks best so long as he does not violate …the rights of other fellow subjects.” (TP, p. 78.) And again:

No one can compel me…to be happy after his fashion; instead, every person may seek happiness in the way that seems best to him, if only he does not violate the freedom of others to strive toward such similar ends as are compatible with everyone’s freedom under a possible universal law (i.e., this right of others). (TP, p. 72.)
Kant was resolutely opposed to paternalistic governments. A government that views subjects as a father views his children, as immature beings who are incompetent to decide for themselves what is good or bad for them and dictates instead “how they ought to be happy” is “the worst despotism we can think of.” Paternalism “subverts all the freedom of the subjects, who would have no freedom whatsoever.” (TP, p. 73.) The sovereign who “wants to make people happy in accord with his own concept of happiness…becomes a despot.” (TP, p. 81.)
Needless to say, these and similar remarks scarcely fit the stereotypical Objectivist image of Kant as a villainous character who wished to subvert reason, morality, and the quest for personal happiness. Kant, whatever his errors, made a serious effort to probe the nature of ethics and moral obligation to their foundations, and to justify a theory of ethics by reason alone. A regard for the dignity and moral autonomy of every individual, regardless of his or her station in life, runs deep in the writings of Kant. But more needs to be said about Kant’s political theory, so that shall be the main topic of my next essay.


The following are the sources for the quotations from Kant used in this essay.
CJ: Critique of Judgement, trans. James Creed Meredith, rev. Nicholas Walker (Oxford University Press, 2007).
CPR: Critique of Practical Reason, trans. Lewis White Beck (Bobbs-Merrill, 1956).
DV: The Doctrine of Virtue: Part II of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. Mary J. Gregor (Harper, 1964).
GMM: Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, translated and analyzed by H.J. Paton, in The Moral Law (Hutchinson, 1972).
TP: “On the Proverb: That May be True in Theory, But Is Of No Practical Use,” in Perpetual Peace and Other Essays, trans. Ted Humphrey (Hackett, 1983).
WE: “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” in Perpetual Peace and Other Essays, trans. Ted Humphrey (Hackett, 1983).






Related






Immanuel Kant and the Natural Law Tradition





Immanuel Kant on Our Duty to Obey Government





Immanuel Kant, the Social Contract, and the State























More to Explore






The Lust for Power





Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle





Does More Technology Create Unemployment?






















Powered by

This is part of a series
Part: 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 



Share
 





George H. Smith

George H. Smith was formerly Senior Research Fellow for the Institute for Humane Studies, a lecturer on American History for Cato Summer Seminars, and Executive Editor of Knowledge Products. Smith's fourth book, The System of Liberty, was recently published by Cambridge University Press.




Explore our growing library of content
Start Exploring ▻



Sign Up to receive updates >
See our full list of newsletters


 Subscribe

Justice, prosperity, responsibility, tolerance, cooperation, and peace.
Libertarianism.org