A few days ago, I saw the article that Clifford D. May had published about General H. R. McMaster, and I was tempted to respond then but decided not to do it right away.
I put off writing
a response because in its ultimate aim, the content of May's article came so
close to what happened to me, I could not have written a response that would be
free of emotions so intense, they would have clouded my judgment. A few days
have passed, and I am certain I can now tell it like it happened.
First, let me tell
you my story before I show you how it relates to the Clifford May article.
Having spent thirty-something years of my life trying to find a place for
myself in a milieu that touted itself as the pinnacle of freedom, but failing
to get my name off the blacklist, I decided to end the quest of searching for a
publisher who would give me a break in journalism or the audio-visual arts.
I started a small
weekly newspaper in a medium-sized town where I lasted a few months before
switching to this blog on the internet. As soon as my first editorial went out,
two things happened. First, the major newspapers of the big and medium cities
surrounding us, came to town and offered deep discount on advertising to soak
up the advertising dollars and deprive me of them. Second, those same
publications contacted me –– sometimes the callers identifying themselves as to
who they represented and sometimes not but –– all of them suggesting that I
should apply for a job at the places that turned me down previously, promising
that I would be meeting more sympathetic publishers this time around.
I pretended not to
get the message because I found it disgusting that they believed I would close
shop now and take their veiled offer, having spent nearly forty years of my
life during which time they acted as if they owned freedom, and I could only
beg to be given some of it. No, this was not my idea of freedom. I thought I
was born with freedom being as much a part of me as the most intimate of my
thoughts. I do not beg for freedom because even the most savage of beasts could
not have snatched it from me.
And you know what
my friend? This is how nations like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran think
and feel about an America that is shackled with the chains of Jewish tyranny,
doing what it can to deprive them of their freedom while pretending to impose
on them the freedom it knows not. And so, in the same way that my subsequent
actions have proven that the freedom I was born with, has allowed me to crush
the proud buffoons of Jerkland, those nations are well on their way to proving
that the freedom which runs in their bloodstreams will eventually crush the
inflated buffoons of Zionland and Yankeeland.
So then, what could
America do that it failed to do so far, in the hope of forging better relations
with the four countries as well as the rest of the world? And how does that
compare with what Clifford May says H.R. McMaser is proposing?
To begin with,
America must understand that––intended or not––its current attitude conveys the
following message: “Do as I tell you, and this will move you from the penalty
box to the probation box where I'll watch you like a hawk and punish you if you
break your probation conditions.” America must completely and publicly
repudiated and reject this mentality. This done, America should sit with those
countries, not to dialogue with them but to listen to the grievances each has
against America. After that, America should work on removing the sources of
those grievances as much as possible, as soon as possible.
This is different
from what McMaster is proposing for the simple reason that he brought nothing
new to the table. His goal is the same old neocon goal, except that he ended up
proposing it by taking a line of reasoning that was not taken before. When you
come down to it, McMaster wants America to arm itself and dictate to other
nations what the Jews want those nations to do. If they disobey, America must
bomb them. Here are a few examples of the new path of logic that McMaster has
taken to arrive at the same old neocon-approved conclusions:
“It's comforting
to believe that our adversaries want security, freedom and prosperity as much
as we do; that they prefer compromise and cooperation to confrontation. But
rarely is that the case”.
“As people have
commercial incentive, whether it's in China or in other totalitarian countries,
the move to democracy becomes inexorable. But it doesn't”.
“Putin's Russia
has been pursuing a strategy to subvert the US and other democracies. Pushing a
little button labeled 'reset' was never going to change that”.
“The 2015 Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action [Iran Nuclear Deal] would produce an evolution in
Iranian behavior. That was a pipe dream”.
“One
administration after another has either ignored or addressed ineffectively the
threat posed by the dynastic dictatorship in North Korea”.
McMaster's
conclusion is that: we tried to be nice to our adversaries, and that turned out
to be a mistake because these people are evil to the core and they will never
change.
You know what, my
friend? McMaster must have looked at his Jewish masters in the face, saw what
was inexorably obnoxious about them, and attributed what he saw to the good
people of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.
To quote Jean-Baptist Alphonse Karr: The more things change, the more they stay the same.