Because we know that one way or the other … that sooner or
later, information will lead to action, we insist that the disseminated
information – whether it was intended to reach us or intended to reach someone
else – be accurate so that the resulting action conform to the incidents that
generated the information in the first place.
This is what the situation looked like in the age of
innocence when human beings first discovered they had the ability to communicate
with each other, transferring information from one being to another while
eliminating the need for everyone to witness the incident that generated the
information in the first place. But then, innocence got lost when someone
discovered that information can be manipulated to make the others take the
wrong sort of action, and with that serve the interests of the manipulator
rather than serve the cause of truth. And when the truth was made to suffer, so
did the concept of justice – that most fundamental of all the causes.
Today, after thousands of years of development in the field
of communication and other related fields, information is designed in all sorts
of forms, and disseminated in all sorts of ways for purposes that are not
always legitimate. It is sometimes designed with fabricated incidents to incite
someone powerful to move against those who might wish to be left alone, and
have every right to that privilege.
These would be the people who believe in what they do even
if it is viewed as being odd by someone else. Opposed to them are the people
who do things in hiding; things that would be viewed as repugnant if the world
knew about them. The first might alter their behavior just enough to make it
acceptable to the rest of society. The second will use their skills at creating
deception, and thus make society give them credit for feats they did not
accomplish. They will also use their skills to make society go against the
people who wish to be left alone.
The first believe in the philosophy of live and let live.
They do not interfere in the affairs of other, and dislike being interfered
with. The second will continually seek to find all they can about their
neighbors because they believe that their own well-being and their continued
existence depend on being in control of their lives and the lives of others. If
they cannot neutralize the neighbors by turning society against them, they will
seek to team up with someone powerful, and get the latter to go after the
neighbors.
If you are getting the impression that the second kind of
people is obsessed with the first, you got the right impression, my friend. And
you can see how all that works in real life by going over two pieces of
writing; one written by Michael Singh and one by the editors of the New York
Times. Singh wrote an article under the title: “Egypt After the Election:
Advancing the Strategic Relationship,” published on the website of the
Washington Institute on May 30, 2014. As to the editors of New York Times, they
came up with an editorial under the title: “Egypt 's Latest Military Strongman,”
published on June 1, 2014.
Singh whose view of the world is that it is owned by the
Jews who have the right to do with it what they wish but cannot always do so
because the world does not always cooperate. This is where America comes
into play because it is the power that can bend the world to the wish of the
Jews. And he sees his job as advising America on how to go about doing
that. Right now he sees that Egypt
has the upper hand in the struggle to remain free of outside influence because
it has alternatives to America
such as the Arab Gulf States and Russia .
So then, guess what Singh is suggesting now. He is telling America to repeat the mighty blunder it
committed six decades ago and cost it dearly while strengthening the moral
authority of Egypt .
Whereas America was able to persuade its European allies at the time to join it
in tightening the screws on an Egypt that was trying to build the Aswan mega
project, Singh is now telling America to try and persuade the Arab Gulf States
to join it in tightening the screws on an Egypt that wants to build not one
mega-project but several of them. This is how you shoot yourself in the foot
and put a hole in your head at the same time. If America were a child, Singh would
be a monstrous babysitter.