American Gerrymandering on the World Stage

What argument do the proponents of the liberal democratic systems of government make to show that they are different from those who adhere to the autocratic systems of government?

When you ask that question, those who call themselves liberal democrats say that contrary to the autocrats who make and enforce artificial rules to befit their own interests – the liberal democrats only administer the rules which rise naturally from the collective will of the governed.

Well, that's how the democratic system is supposed to work ideally. But the process has so deteriorated that simple and clean bills are quickly turned into bags of sausage the legislators fill with ugly looking and foul smelling ingredients. And when these artificial conceptions are finally enacted into laws, the lawyers and the accountants of the nation delve into them – not to determine the best way to adhere to them – but to advise their clients how they can get around them and still remain legal.

This process was never called gerrymandering but the mentality powering it is the same as that behind the actual gerrymandering that's done to the electoral boundaries of the nation's precincts. This is the act that's executed by the ruling party in every American state to redraw the natural boundaries determining the current precincts. Gerrymandering is done to artificially create new precincts that would contain voters likely to support the candidates of the ruling party. It is a way to use the existing laws to tailor-make a situation that will circumvent the collective will of the governed.

In effect then, if the duty of a liberal democracy that's in power is to administer the natural tendencies expressed by the collective under its governance, gerrymandering of any kind must be seen as the degradation of the democratic principle. That's what is happening throughout the so-called free world where, the more they profess to adhere to the principles of democracy, the more you'll find them tailor-make artificial situations to violate those principles and yet remain legal.

Worse, as ugly as the spectacle of governance looks in America at this time; as unruly as the superpower has become, you'll find that the people who brought calamity to that nation, continue to advise it without showing a hint of reservation or shame. Having messed up every aspect of American life, they still dare to advise the government on how to take that same system of gerrymandering and dump it on the world stage.

In fact, there is a discussion to that effect in an article that came under the title: “Saudi Nuclear Talks: Risks and Limitations,” written by Jay Solomon and published on Jan. 31, 2018 on the website of the Washington Institute. The writer begins his presentation with this lament: “Allowing Saudi Arabia to produce nuclear fuel could have consequences in the Middle East and Asia, but Washington may not have the leverage to enforce a permanent ban.” Of course, in diplomatic language “leverage” is euphemism for coercive measure.

America's dilemma, says Solomon, is that it has a moribund nuclear industry that needs rejuvenation. And this can happen if America gets the 80 billion dollars worth of contracts that Saudi Arabia will soon tender to launch its own nuclear industry. The catch is that the Arab nation wants to produce its own nuclear fuel, a step that can lead to the production of nuclear weapons. Other than America, several advanced countries are prepared to take up the Saudi contracts without condition. Thus, the choices that America faces is to follow suit and bid for the contracts without condition, or pressure the other countries into allowing Saudi Arabia only the ability to produce a limited amount of nuclear fuel. In addition, America wants to impose a stringent inspection regime on Saudi Arabia; one that will be supervised by the IAEA. This tailor-making of the rules to suit the current situation stands as gerrymandering the American sausage and dumping it on the world stage where the chance of its success is zero.

In fact, America's fear is not only that Saudi Arabia may someday decide to produce nuclear weapons, but also that it has a deal with the UAE and one with South Korea prohibiting them from producing nuclear fuel. That's not to mention the more complicated nuclear deal America has with Iran. Thus, any deal it does that will allow Saudi Arabia any leeway, no matter how minute it may be, will impact those other deals. It may even unravel the vision America has with regard to its own nuclear development and that of the other countries. And no amount of gerrymandering will solve all of these problems at once.

But why is America in this morass? Is there an easy way out?

The answer to the two questions is encapsulated in a single sentence: America allowed itself to be victimized by the Jewish game of ambiguity concerning Israel's fictitious nuclear arsenal.

As usual, to appear more important than they are, the Israelis wanted the world to believe they have a nuclear arsenal of 200 warheads made with uranium that was extracted from phosphate they obtained by sifting the sands of the Sinai when they occupied the Peninsula between 1967 and 1973.

Because this would have required Israel to have an industrial base employing everyone alive from the newborn to the dying of old age––all working day and night in smelters, foundries and machine shops on making centrifuges and specialized production machines, taking up the entire Negev Desert––the Israelis knew that only the simpletons at CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other tabloids will buy that nonsense.

And so the Jews adopted the ambiguity approach by recruiting a bunch of mentally retarded Americans, and got them to put out rumors which the Israelis refused to confirm or deny. And because it was the Jews who were playing the game, no American official dared to put an end to the madness. On the contrary, some officials even allowed their country's name and honor to be leveraged so as to give credibility to the Jewish rumors.

And now that America is facing a huge problem that may decide the nuclear future of the planet, it is unable to work on making the Middle East a nuclear free zone … which is the only way that America could solve all of its nuclear issues in one fell swoop.

And so this question: Is there someone in America that's man enough to publicly advocate this course of action instead of letting the planet slide into a Jewish-made nuclear holocaust?