On October 6, 2011 the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an editorial under the title: “The Education of Susan Rice” and the subtitle: “A shocked ambassador learns what the U.N. is really about.” Well, maybe the ambassador did learn something or maybe she did not. And maybe there was something to learn or maybe there was not. What is clear, however, is that the Wall Street Journal learned nothing of the lessons that were there to be learned in the years that passed, and learned nothing of the lessons that are here to be learned today, including what just happened at the United Nations. In fact, when it comes to the education of the Wall Street Journal, it has all been a waste of time and it still is.
Briefly what happened during the recent events is that Russia and China did something they rarely do at the United Nations which is that they used the right of the veto they have at the Security Council. They used it this time to kill a proposed resolution that was supported by the United States, one that criticized the events unfolding in Syria. And the Wall Street Journal opined that this was the awful reality by which the “Liberal” Susan Rice was mugged as evidenced by the fact that she said she was outraged, and by the views that she vented on Twitter, one of which was: “This is a sad day” and another that went like this: “We will not rest until the Council rises to meet its responsibilities.”
But what is it that is so flawed about the thinking of the Journal that it cheers every American veto which is cast to encourage Israeli savagery in the Middle East but laments any veto that is cast by someone else when it calls for caution and for patience? The first clue as to what is flawed about that thinking hits you in the face when you see the editors of the Journal call Susan Rice a Liberal. In fact, it does not matter whether she is a Liberal or anything else; what matters is that in their quest to describe her, the editors of the Journal have revealed their hand which is that they are playing politics with the subject. The worst part is that they are playing not just any politics; they are playing politics of the Judeo-Yiddish kind – the worst that you can imagine. You know they are playing politics because they are involving the whole world in the Liberal-versus-Conservative tussle that characterizes the local politics in America at this point in its electoral cycle.
If anything, the rest of the article demonstrates how much the playing of the political game influences the thinking of the Journal editors. And when you see this, you get a feel as to the effect that such thinking has on two points which are crucial to America at this juncture in the Republic's evolution both as a world power and a society. The first point concerns what is happening to America's standing in the world, a trend that the savvy political class has indicated it does not like. The second point concerns the shift that the American culture is forced to undergo, a trend that the public has indicated it does not like.
At first you tend to sympathize with the editors of the Journal because you think it may be that they are slow to learn or that they have difficulty gathering the pertinent data. Thus, you hope they will be flooded with so much data it will be impossible for them to miss seeing the truth. But you discount this theory when you learn from reading the rest of the editorial that they have all the data they need; and you come to realize that the problem resides in their inability to process that data intelligently no matter how much of it they have and how much time they are given to study it. Look at this paragraph: “Unlike … Gadhafi … who made … enemies in the Arab world and beyond that he couldn't count on Moscow or Beijing … Syria's Bashar Assad is … in good … standing. His security forces … put thousands … in … prison. But this didn't keep the Sino-Russian duo from coming to his aid – the first time they have cast their vetoes together since 2008, when they blocked a resolution condemning Robert Mugabe's human-rights record.” There is so much data packed in this passage you realize that the editors did not miss anything but processed what they had incompetently.
Having lined up all that data back to back, you would have expected them to ask a series of pertinent questions such as the following. What happened to us that we cannot measure up to the Russians or the Chinese; not even to Assad or Mugabe? You would have expected them to wonder why it is that America is treated like a Gadhafi and lumped with him while the Arabs and the rest of the world shun the once respected superpower. You would have expected them to cry out that this is the same America which crushed the Nazi war machine to the cheers of the Europeans and the Africans; and managed to destroy the Japanese Imperial Navy even after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, to the cheers of the Asians. You would have expected them to observe that this is the same America that was once treated like the beloved liberator of Europe -- which it did in the 1940s when Eisenhower beat the Nazis; and treated like the beloved liberator of Egypt -- which it did in 1956 when Eisenhower ordered the French and the British to end their aggression on that country. And you would have expected the Journal to ask: What happened to us that we went in a free fall from the top of the mountain to the bowels of the toilet at such stunning speed? But the folks at the Journal did none of this because they lacked the mental processing capability of even a high school student.
Not only do you see them botch the processing of the data, you see them do worse as they try to steer the discussion in a false direction. Here is what they do in this regard: “Meanwhile … real steps are being taken against Damascus … the European Union [has] already adopted sanctions targeting Syria … Turkey broke its ties with Damascus...” Thus, you realize that they are trying to keep America wedded to the policies that pulled it from the top of the mountain to the bowels of the toilet. And this is when you understand that these people are not thinking for themselves but are operating like robots in the sense that they are running an old program; one they have been running for some time now.
And so you are not surprised to see them welcome the fact that someone has taken measures to punish Syria. These may not be measures that fully coincide with their vision of blood flowing in the streets and body parts flying in the air as would have done the full blown operation of shock and awe they constantly advocate for the Arab and Muslim countries but they are measures that, in their eyes, go in the right direction. And what this tells you is that the editors of the Journal are incapable of grasping the fundamental difference which separates the America of today from the America of yesteryear; that separates the America of today from the world of today. It is a difference that boils down to the fact that the world is preoccupied with the business and welfare of the world while America has been reduced to preoccupy itself with the business and welfare of Israel and only Israel even when the practice conflicts with the interests of the Republic and the American people.
And you get the feel that one thing worries the editors of the Journal more than anything else even if they do not admit to this or indicate the source of their worry. Being a voice that occupies a central place in the Jewish propaganda machine, the Journal suffers from the inability to see that the power and prestige of America have been reduced by its association with Israel and the Jewish causes to the point that it can no longer do what it was able to do simply by indicating what it wanted. And oddly enough, this is what prompted the editors of the Journal to develop the sense that America's preoccupation with Israel may be slackening. In response to this development, the Journal editors have joined the Jewish leaders in constantly nudging America to make up for the reduction in its influence by responding to every situation in the world with military force no matter what the consequences may be to the world and to America. This being what Israel wishes to become but cannot due to its limited resources, you see that America is being shaped to serve as the muscular alter ego of Israel.
Since the Administration governing America at the present time is of a stripe that does not exactly warm the hearts of the WSJ editors, and since that Administration has adopted a strategy of prudence more than one of military recklessness, the editors of the Journal saw in the Syrian development an opportunity to play local politics using world events. Here is what they write in this regard: “So why, except for reasons of masochism or moral abdication, does the Obama Administration insist on obtaining a symbolic and toothless U.N. resolution?” Following this question, the editors cobble together a few sentences to explain why they view the resolution as being symbolic and toothless before they get into the meaty stuff which they do eventually.
Well, let us say it may be meaty to them but what they do, in fact, is indicate that they have hit against a wall of reality which says that America is now a reduced power and that it continues to shrink because of its association with the losers of this world, chief among them being Israel. But the editors of the Journal could not have made such a discovery without going on to deceive themselves – a deception they tailor-make to soften the blow -- and so they inject a false premise into the argument. Look at the admission they make in the following sentence and look at the self-deception they attach to it: “The Syrian people will make their own history, with or without the U.N.'s moral imprimatur.” Yes, the Syrian people, like people everywhere, will make their own history and they don't need America or the Jews to make it for them. But when it comes to moral imprimatur, if there is an idiot that never stops judging other people to condone them or condemn them, it is not the UN but is America which does it mindlessly and does it automatically on a mere signal from its Jewish manipulators.
In the end, the evil that motivates them prevails as it always does, and they again expose the fantasy they harbor in their hearts and in their minds about seeing Syria being punished to the point where blood may flow in the streets, and body parts may fly in the air. Of course, they would have preferred that an attack against Syria be started and led by America but they will settle for someone else starting the attack such as Turkey for example which is, after all, still a member of NATO. To this end, they cheerfully tell us about the news that is now warming their hearts: “An opposition council on the Libyan model recently formed in Istanbul. With each defection … the Assad regime grows weaker.” And you can almost hear them sing their longing hymn of long anticipated triumph:
Blood, blood blood; we smell blood at last.
It’ll be Arab blood by NATO bombs that blast.
And to make sure that if and when Turkey starts the operation, America will not be left out but will elbow itself into the fray and end up dominating the operation, they give advice to anyone who may be listening to them. They say this: “Maybe … the Obama Administration might take further steps to oust Mr. Assad.” In fact, these people don't seem to believe that America should wait for Turkey to start the operation, they would go in right now if it were up to them. And they reveal this sentiment not in a straightforward manner but in a round about way. This is the last sentence they write: “Leading from the front would be out of character for this Administration, but so was Ms. Rice's disgust this week with the U.N.” In other words, they mean to say that because Ms. Rice reversed herself and became disgusted with the UN, they are allowing themselves to fantasize that the current Administration may also reverse itself and try to lead from the front instead of leading from behind which, according to them, has been the case up to now.
What all this should indicate to you and me is that the editors of the Wall Street Journal are driven by a fanatic vision which stays dormant when all avenues are closed to it. But if and when an opening occurs, the vision comes to life and the editors call for the same things that the Jewish leaders call for. In fact, you find that the vision of the Wall Street Journal exactly matches that of the Jewish leaders. And in the same way that people have throughout history unfairly concluded that a good Jew is a dead Jew, people are now concluding – and fairly so -- that the good Journal will only be good when it will become a dead Journal.
But I insist on saying that things do not have to develop in that way because Israel, the Jews and the Journal are welcome to join the human race by adhering to the civilized compact that is here for everyone to embrace and be a member in good standing.