Why is it that some problems lend themselves to an easy
resolution and others do not? Why is it that some problems remain confined to
the two parties involved in a dispute, and other problems spread out to encompass
several more parties? Why is it that Jews have a high propensity to interfere
in the affairs of others, thus mess up the stage for everyone in the process?
Believe it or not, the best approach to answering those
questions is to borrow from economics the principle of supply and demand, and
adapt it to social and political situations. The economic principle boils down
to this: When the supply of a commodity exceeds the demand for it, the price of
the commodity falls. In contrast, when the demand exceeds the supply, the price
rises. Thus, the ideal condition is to strike a balance between the two.
When that principle is adapted to social and political
situations, it can be said that if the opportunity for the advancement of an
individual or an institution or a nation, is clearly seen to be equally
available to everyone, tranquility will reign. If, on the other hand, one party
believes – rightly or wrongly – that it is kept from attaining its full
potential because the system is rigged against it or rigged in favor of someone
else, trouble will begin to brew, and the situation will acquire the potential
to get out of hand. Thus, to have an ideal condition, one must begin by
devising a system that treats all sides equally, and then maintain the
impartiality of that system.
However, because we are human beings and not an abstract
economic or social concept, we have both the inclination and the ability to
seek a compromise to disputes we may have with someone. We sit with other
people, talk to them, explain and clarify our position, iron out our
differences and reconcile with the position of the other … all in the name of
peace and tranquility. Having an impartial mediator moderating the give-and-take
between the sides can also be a welcome addition at the negotiating table.
When we are in that frame of mind, and we read the latest
article written by Clifford D. May, we recoil at the approach he is taking to
parse that same subject-matter and flesh it the way that he does. The article
came under the title: “National security reforms for the next president” and
the subtitle: “The best we can do is make some educated guesses.” It was
published on May 24, 2016 in The Washington Times.
Clifford May says the following at the start of his
presentation: “National security can be stated quite simply: We have enemies.
What do we do about them? This is a matter of life and death.” May is a Jewish
leader, and that is an unmistakable signal from him affirming that Jews have a
high propensity not to resolve differences they may have with other people. In
fact, they are always at loggerhead with them.
As well, the rest of the article demonstrates that the Jews
go out of their way to interfere in the affairs of other people if only to
ascertain that differences between them are not resolved, and that
reconciliation is never attempted by any of the parties.
After that opening, the author discusses the position taken
by each of the two leading candidates now running to be president of the United States .
Every step of the way, he makes no secret of his disappointment at both
candidates because they appear to him “like a box of chocolates: We don't know
what we're gonna get”.
Instead, he would have liked to see that “both candidates
understand: America
has enemies. They are serious, ruthless and lethal;” a situation that the
current President, Barack Obama, has rejected according to the allusions that
the author makes, pointing to the resetting of relations with Russia the
administration carried out.
From what he says, Clifford May also displays the tendency
that the Jews have drummed into the head of a former President. It is the
tendency that prompted the latter to say: “If you're not with us, you're
against us.” It’s that in the mind of this president and the mind of all those
subjected to the same treatment, the world is divided into two factions: There
is the good, which is us and all those who are allied with us; and there is the
evil, which is them and all those who are allied with them.
The reality is that in a world such as this, there can be no
compromise, no discussion to resolve differences between the parties, and no
attempt at reconciliation. There can only be war; the kind that goes on at
perpetuity or until one side is vanquished for good.
The above paints a picture of what the rest of the world
sees when looking at America
today. It is different from what the world used to see half a century ago; a
time when America
was the go-to nation that all the other nations looked up to and wanted to
befriend.