It is time to weep for the state of American journalism and
punditry where a profound transformation has happened. What used to be a model
for the world to emulate has become an example for the world to laugh at. From
a mirror reflecting the greatness of America, the industry has become a mirror
reflecting the degradation of that country. What made people the world over
proud to inhabit a planet containing America, now makes them feel embarrassed
to even think they share the same planet.
The changeover from sterling to junk did not happen
overnight but took time to work itself through the system. While it is
difficult to pinpoint the exact place and time when the degradation began, it
is possible to guess that it must have started with one person and spread to
the group. From there, the infestation must have migrated to the department; an
event that resulted in spoiling the whole organization and the entire industry.
What you see now when you look at the American journalistic landscape is so
different from what was, you'll think you're looking at a different country.
And there is a reason why all this has happened to America.
Whereas the journalists used to be sent to hot spots or to interesting places
around the globe from where they filed stories based on what they discovered,
they now submit to indoctrination as to what they should look for and what they
are supposed to discover before an editor would send them anywhere. Once they
finally get to go, they take pictures of local spots, and they jot down the
names of locals they meet so as to quote them and make the reporting sound as
if it were conceived on the spot, not back home in the office of the editor.
And when they send what is nothing more than preconceived
information to the news-desk from where it is disseminated among the
columnists, the editorial writers and the other pundits, the result will be the
kind of opinion pieces that makes people laugh, and makes them cry but never
makes them think or ponder the state of world affairs and the human condition.
This kind of superficiality grips the culture because the pieces of most
writers sound like echoes of each other, something that the intelligent readers
consider to be laughable or worse, find it to stink so badly they don't
consider it a laughing matter.
You can see traces of all this in the Charles Krauthammer
article: “Kerry's Folly” which also came under the subtitle: “The secretary of
state's effort to salvage the Arab-Israeli negotiations are useless.” It was
published on April 3, 2014 in National Review Online. If you are familiar with
the Krauthammer style of writing, you will want to block in your mind the
adjectives of characterization which are strewn liberally throughout the
article, and concentrate on what else is there.
And so, having discarded words and expressions like
“disastrous,” “self-initiated,” “holding no cards,” “supposedly,” and “acrimony
and confusion,” which you'll find in the first paragraph alone, you are left
with something that puzzles you if you still want to give credit to the author,
or something you'll consider to be laughable if you're tired of this sort of
game.
And the game being played here is that Krauthammer, like all
pundits who have no good ideas as to what needs to be done always criticize the
administration for doing something when it does, and criticize it for not doing
something when it pauses to take stock of the situation before proceeding. It
is the classic case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. This is why
our author begins his article like this: “When has a secretary of state been
involved in so many … negotiations?”
Unable to call John Kerry a “do nothing Secretary of State”
or point to a decision he made that cost America dearly in life or in treasure,
Krauthammer who still burns with the desire to put Kerry down, uses the
cowardly technique of citing what someone else has done and characterizes that
(falsely to be sure) as being demeaning to Kerry. Here is an example: “Kerry
goes chasing after Sergei Lavrov offering a diplomatic “offramp.” Lavrov shrugs
him off. Russia annexes Crimea.”
But that's only the appetizer because the main course in the
eyes of Krauthammer is the one that most Jews have always kept in their line of
sight. It is the Middle East. Their relationship to this subject can be
understood through this saying: “The Christians believe that the Jews crucified
Jesus because he tried to bring peace to them. The Muslims believe that the
Jews crucified Jimmy Carter because he tried to bring peace to them. Now the
whole world knows that the Jews wish to crucify John Kerry because he is trying
to bring peace to them … In fact, the most dangerous thing you can do is stand
in front of a Jew and call yourself a peacemaker for, one way or the other, you
will end up on the cross.”
And this is how Krauthammer expressed that sentiment: “The
crowning piece of diplomatic futility is Kerry's frantic effort to salvage the
Arab-Israeli negotiations … aiming to produce a final Middle East peace … The talks
have gone nowhere. But this has been a fool's errand from Day One.” What the
Jews are doing in this twenty first century AD is what they have been doing
since the twenty first century BC which is to raid, butcher and loot those who
cannot defend themselves. They have managed to create a situation of this kind
in Palestine with the help of an American Congress of skunks that the Jews were
able to subjugate. This done, they taught the stinking creatures that it is
preferable to genuflect in front of a Jew – even if he is a gambling mogul –
than develop an ounce of self-respect, and stand for a lofty principle like
serving the people who elect them.
Thus, after going through a great deal of talking points
considered to be of the Jewish steady diet, our columnist returns to the
subject of the Middle East, and makes a final pitch: “perhaps the
administration could stop fighting Congress, which developed a method. Under
law, any U.N. agency that recognizes Palestine has its U.S. funds cut off.”