When you desire something and work to accomplish it, you’ll consider it a win if and when you accomplish. And so, you establish in your mind, a link between the desire to accomplish something and the concept of winning. It follows that if your desire changes, so will your perception of winning.
This
demands that you pose a serious question: How can you tell that what you wish
for at any moment is the correct desire to have? In other words, might you not
pursue and accomplish a goal today, and then regret having had the wrong desire
to begin with?
Desire
is an emotion that develops on the spur of the moment in response to an event.
On the other hand, regret is a mental state that develops over time as a result
of studying the hurried response to an event. If the study confirms the
correctness of the initial response, the inquiry ends here. But if the study
finds fault with the initial response, we face a new situation; one that requires
rethinking the conditions and/or assumptions which caused the initial desire to
develop in the first place.
This
is what comes to mind when you read Clifford D. May’s article that came under
the title: “Biden blew a chance for a win in his meeting with Putin,” published
on June 22, 2021 in The Washington Times.
Reading
the article, you immediately establish that it is more than the regret of a
single event. It is the regret of a chain of events having a common theme, even
if they unfolded over a long period of time and involved various personalities who
faced a somewhat similar situation. In fact, here is how Clifford May started
his discussion: “Time and again, we fail to understand Russia and its rulers”.
To
explain his point, Clifford May cited the example of Roosevelt that did not
heed the warning of Churchill who cautioned about Russia. But Roosevelt convinced
himself that Stalin liked him, says May, thus gave him everything he could in
the hope that Stalin will not annex anything, but work for democracy and peace.
And then the Cold War erupted only to prove otherwise.
The
Soviet Union then died in 1991, says Clifford May, and once again, “most of us
had great expectations for Russia.” But we were disappointed as demonstrated by
the fact that in the recent summit between the American President Joe Biden and
the Russian President Vladimir Putin, Biden was compelled to raise concerns
regarding “Mr. Putin’s multiple crimes,” May explains.
The
current condition of the world being the concern of Clifford May, that’s what
he used the rest of the article to discuss. He proceeded to name some of what
he says have been Putin’s crimes. They included Russia’s participation in the
Syrian war, the occupation of Ukraine and Georgia, the cyberattacks against
American installations and the quashing of media, including Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty.
Clifford
May expressed dismay that Mr. Putin denied the cybercrime accusations but said
he was not surprised because, “Hey, if million of people are willing to believe
China’s rulers when they charge that COVID-19 originated in the US, and Iran’s
rulers when they say their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, why should
Mr. Putin not be offered the same courtesy?”
And
that’s where and when the entire Clifford May polemical construct came crackling
down like a flaming Zeppelin. It’s because in going after the mouse that
invaded the room, Clifford May ignored the elephant that resides in that same
room. The elephant happens to be the collaboration between America and Israel,
both of whom pioneered and continue to fund as well as practice the crimes that
Clifford May has accused Russia of committing in the past. These include the
participation in the Syrian war, the occupation of Palestine, the cyberattacks
against Iran’s installations as well as the assassination of their scientists,
and the bombing of Palestinian audio-visual and print media outlets.
To
authenticate and reinforce the absurdity of the master-sinner scolding the
student-sinner for doing nothing worse than imitate the master, Clifford May rejected
Vladimir Putin’s claim of moral equivalence between Russia and America. If you
want to know, this is one of the Judeo-Yiddish habits they infused into the
American culture, the reason why the latter was taken down to the level of the
banal.
But
the thing is that the Jews have always wanted that banality to prevent others
from crowding them on the pedestal of the “Chosen.” It happened that for a long
time, the Jews would not allow anyone to come close to sharing the pedestal
with them. But a reversal of fortunes began to creep into the global situation,
and those who stand high are being pulled down to make room for the downtrodden
who will replace them on the pedestals.
Because
misery seeks company, the Jews are now inviting the Americans to share both the
pedestal and the anticipated downfall with them. So, the question to ask is
this: Will America play the confrontation game against others, and be flushed
down the Jewish tube?
Or
will America act like an elder statesman and guide the world toward a future
that will be rewarding for everyone regardless of their political belief or
affiliation?
That’s the golden formula, if America works to master it, that will lead to the continued scoring of big wins.