As I see things, it took three days to unveil something
crucial about America 's
march into history. If you believe – like I do – that the way a nation makes
history depends on the ideas it generates and sticks with at a given moment in
time, you will find that the three days between February 7 and February 9 of
the year 2013 should be saying something important about where America stands
today, and where it may be headed.
It happened that on February 9, 2013 the Wall Street Journal
published an editorial which added a meaning to a couple of articles that were
hitherto unclear. Both were published on February 7, 2013 in National Review
Online (NRO). The Journal editorial has the title: “The Ayatollah Always Says
No” and the subtitle: “Khamenei rejects another U.S. offer. Maybe he wants a bomb.”
As to the NRO articles, one was written by Daniel Pipes, has
the title: “Is Turkey Leaving the West?” and the subtitle: “The NATO member's
prime minister if flirting with a dictator's club.” The other article was
written by Joseph Raskas, has the title: “Cut Egypt Off” and the subtitle:
“Until Morsi's government supports U.S. interests, we shouldn't send
military or economic aid.”
What the three articles have in common is that they urge the
American government to antagonize the three giant nations in the Middle East: Egypt , Turkey
and Iran who have a combined
population of a quarter of a billion people, making them almost as large as the
United States of America .
The thing is that all three nations had been good friends with Israel at one
time or another, but are now pursuing a relationship with the Jewish state that
ranges from the lukewarm to the antagonistic – whatever the reasons for the
change of heart may have been.
It is clear, however, that the three published pieces are
urging America to turn
itself into a lackey that will tend to the needs of Israel – the supposed honored guest
in this artificial drama. Is this something new, or has it been like that all
along? Well, it has been like that at least during the George W. Bush
presidency. And the architect of this dastardly policy was Karl Rove who has
been recognized by most observers as the effective “Brain” for a W that was
otherwise brainless.
But the history of America did not start with Rove or
the W; it started long before that, close to five centuries before. It started,
in fact, when Christopher Columbus rediscovered the continent that had been
discovered thousands of years earlier by people who are now collectively referred
to as Natives. But in the wake of Columbus came hordes of European settlers to
what they called the New World, and the outcome was that a series of wars
erupted between them and the Natives who regarded the settlers as invaders. The
outcome of the confrontation was tragic for the Natives because the invaders
possessed inventions that the Natives could not have imagined, the deadliest
being the gun.
And the gun has played a major role in America 's
history since that time. To understand that role, we first need to understand
something about all inventions. It was Marshall McLuhan who first observed that
most inventions are used by us, humans, as extensions to (a) supplement,
supplant or enhance the function of our limbs such as the hands or the legs (b)
supplement, supplant or enhance the function of our sensory receptors such as
the eyes or the ears (c) supplement, supplant or enhance the function of our
other organs such as a kidney that is failing.
By the time that the observation had permeated the popular
culture in America
– as it did during the decades of the Nineteen Sixties and Seventies – and by
the time it had become a part of our psychological makeup, the view of the gun
as being the extension of the phallus had solidified. Consequently, the handgun
that was dubbed “Saturday Night Special” and was used to commit the bulk of
murders in America
at the time, had taken on the image of the iron penis.
This is not such an odd thing because the attribution of a
characteristic belonging to one class of objects to another class has been
common to all human cultures since the beginning of time. In fact, this is how
and why hieroglyphic writing was developed. In modern times, the most famous
attribution has been the calling of the railroad train an iron horse.
For a long time, the gun culture was viewed as being an
American phenomenon spurred by the history of a continent that was conquered by
desperate men and women who fled their respective homelands in Europe for one
reason or another, had nowhere to go, but had the opportunity to confront the
native populations of the New World . Gun in
hand, they faced off the natives and decimate them given that the gun was the
weapon of mass destruction of its time, and given that the Natives had nothing
with which to defend themselves against it.
Eventually, the Europeans took possession of what used to
belong to the natives, made several colonies of the lands where they settled,
and in turn feared that what had become theirs could be taken away because the
King of England – who also had guns, and bigger ones at that – was preparing to
take it all from them. The deal he offered the settlers was that they accept
paying him a tax without having a say as to how the colonies were to be
governed. In the event that they refuse the offer, he warned he will attack and
take the colonies. The settlers refused to pay, he attacked as promised, and
they defeated his army.
But then, they feared that someone they elect to govern them
– even if he would govern with their consent – may someday evolve and become as
tyrannical as the King of England, and seek to take away what they viewed as
being the “freedom” they fought for and secured for themselves and their
descendants. They came to regard the gun that made it all possible as the
instrument with which they will guaranty the maintenance of that freedom now
and forever. Thus, it was ingrained in their psyche that if the iron penis was
not here to create new life; it was here to protect the existing life – theirs
and that of their descendants. And so, they stuck to their guns as dearly as
they stuck to life.
And while the paradigm of the gun culture in the Nineteen
Sixties and Seventies was slowly fusing with the paradigm of free love and easy
sex, Hollywood
was setting the stage to usher in a new paradigm; one that was to take effect
in the decade of the Nineteen Eighties. What Hollywood brought then was the glorification
of horror and the depiction of indiscriminate violence. It was a culture that
the advocates took pain to justify on the grounds that horror and violence were
true expressions of the Judeo-Christian culture as can be seen on every page of
the Bible.
In short, death and destruction were said to be the will of
the God who is depicted in the Bible; a war-ridden God that never ceased to
lead “his people” to battle however bloody and horrifying the battles were.
What made this argument palpable, and made it difficult to counter was the fact
that the Hollywood actor, Ronald Reagan, had become President of the United States of America
and was becoming more popular by the day, if not for the quality of the movies
he made; for his ability to talk in simple terms to simple folks.
This is when the Jewish leaders who, up to that time, were
adhering to a philosophy of liberalism and a gun free society, began to turn
coat and embrace a more right wing philosophy. But instead of melting into the
pot of the existing Republican Party which flew the banner of conservatism,
they outflanked the mainstream Republicans by creating a wing at the extreme
right; one that came to be known as the New Conservative wing or Neocon wing of
the Party. And they embraced the gun culture.
Moreover, these people came with a fully developed agenda.
But this was an agenda they did not spell out in writing or record by any of
the available means lest they produce a paper trail that would reveal their
plan in detail. What they did instead was to let the agenda spell itself out
while being implemented one atrocious step after the other. As it turned out, the
agenda of the Neocons was an exhaustive plan that was meant to involve America in a
never ending war against Islam, and against what they called “the Arab core.”
The Neocons also promised to do battle with everyone else who will refuse to
toe the line of the Pax Americana they were putting together.
That Pax would have been the precursor to the eternal
kingdom they believed God had been promising them since the beginning of time.
And what this meant in practical terms was that the gun culture which used to
be restricted to America
was now being transferred to the world stage by the Jewish leaders. This was
done in accordance with the Jewish habit of going into a new place, selecting
what is odd about it, transferring it somewhere else and shoving it down the
throat of those who would not swallow. If you want to know what this habit has
brought the Jews, review the events surrounding the Spanish Inquisition.
And then came the election of 2012 which demonstrated how
wrong the Neocons have been in their understanding of the Jewish electorate in America , let alone their understanding of the
general electorate of America ,
let alone their understanding the world outside America . These people proved to be
as far removed from understanding anything they look at as a cockroach would be
from understanding the difference that may exist between it and their Neocon
mentality – however minimal that difference may be.
The result of all this has been that a civil war has erupted
inside the Republican Party between the old guard – now headed by Karl Rove who
wants to get rid of the Neocon influence in order to rebuild the party – and
the non-Jewish disciples of the Neocon philosophy who have embraced it and have
refused to let go of it. As to the Jewish Neocons, they did what comes
naturally to them; they ran for cover into the dark spots as they always do
when the light is turned on.
Two archetypes of the non-Jewish Neocons would be Stephen
Hayes and Tucker Carlson who are middle aged men clearly going through a
mid-life crisis. They realize that their life accomplishment has consisted of
absorbing the Neocon nonsense and regurgitating it. The result has been that at
the end of the last election, they were themselves regurgitated by both the
Jewish Neocons who pumped into them the nonsense that caused their demise, and
by the population they tried to impress with that nonsense.
Even then, it is doubtful that these two or any of the
others in the same boat will surrender to Karl Rove because having surrendered
their manhood to the Jewish Neocons, the chances are that they will respond
favorably to the kind of articles published around the three February days
discussed earlier, and will try to emulate them in their own writings.
And so, the non-Jewish Neocons will continue to fight like
the dickens to maintain the right to show – not to the American people that
already rejected them – but show the world that they still have a dick as hard
as iron.
And Karl Rove has his hands full.