What's wrong with these Jews? They never cease doing the
wrong things while pretending to do the right things.
Here is Clifford D. May writing yet another column trying to
engage people he cannot name for whatever sick reason, in a “talk at each
other” conversation, hoping it will yield useful information … as it never
does.
This is typical Jewish mentality that never bore fruit in
four thousand years. Not only that, it always led the Jews to the kind of
places where they would rather not be … or maybe they do. Who knows?
This time, May's column came under the title: “Ronald
Reagan's freedom agenda,” published on June 12, 2018 in the Washington Times.
He tells of a group of prominent Jews – including himself – that came together
to discuss “the march of freedom and democracy” in the world. He says that most
of the others at the gathering expressed optimism that the situation was
improving in a number of places around the globe, but that he alone disagreed
with their assessment, being the lone voice to express pessimism.
To counter the others who named a few places where they said
democracy was progressing, he named places where he said democracy was
regressing. He then did the equivalent of throwing his hands up in the air as
if to signal his surrender to despair. Here is how he expressed all that: “What
we can do about this trend is unclear. Exporting democracy requires skills
we've not mastered”.
But he didn't stop here. He went on to add the following:
“I'd argue that it's both morally imperative and strategically wise to support
freedom fighters struggling against common enemies anywhere and everywhere.” As
always, however, the problem with this kind of writing is that when you go over
the column, you find not a hint as to how the writer defines “freedom” or
“freedom fighters.” And neither does he explain how these people can be
supported by a democracy, or why supporting them would be strategically wise.
Until Clifford May does that, I have no choice but to offer
an alternative to his construct:
We are facing two situations which are opposite to each
other in many ways. First, there is what's referred to as the autocratic system
of governance which is reputed to be strict in matters relating to the conduct of
the citizenry. Second, there is what's referred to as the democratic system of
governance which is reputed to be permissive in matters relating to the conduct
of the citizenry.
These being the theoretical descriptions of each system,
they may have functioned as intended at the start. But because nothing that
relates to human activity remains constant, the practice of the two systems has
changed over time. In general, the autocratic systems have mellowed to become
more like benevolent autocracies. As to the democratic systems; they evolved to
become more like cesspools of legalized corruption.
Economically, the benevolent dictatorships tend to suppress
the so-called “animal spirit.” It means that in the choice between leisure and
work, the citizens lien more in the direction of leisure and less in the
direction of work. As to the citizens of the democracies, they split into those
who are endowed with an abundance of animal spirit, and those who don't. Those
that have it tend to exploit those that don't. The result is that everyone
tries to get more out of life for as little as possible of what they put into
it … hence the thick air of corruption.
When it comes to the issues relating to human rights, the
benevolent dictatorships tell you what the rules are and what the punishment
will be if you break them. If you do, the authorities charge you and punish you
as prescribed in the law. As to the democracies, they let you do what they say
is permitted till your freedom gets in the way of the corruption that's exercised
in secret by someone powerful. That's when the corrupt marry the instruments of
the private sector to those of government and use the combination to turn your
life into a nightmare.
They do it by sabotaging every progress you make before you
can reap the benefits thereof. And so, compared to the method of the
dictatorships, this is like comparing the attitude of a tough-love,
disciplinarian Mother Theresa to the attitude of a cowardly and savage,
bisexual pedophile Harvey Weinstein.
Thus, my recommendation to Clifford May is that he should
launch a MeToo website and publish the names of the North American citizens
whom the Jews victimized by marrying their virulent despotism with those of the
bumbling authorities in the United States and Canada.