Here is a young intern beginning his intellectual journey
with a skull that is already full of moral syphilis, and doing it in
association with a group that is removed from the society at large. Serving his
internship at National Review, he is Spencer Case who wrote an article under
the title: “How Obama Sided with the Muslim Brotherhood” and the subtitle:
“Starting a year ago this week, Obama seemed to choose the worst over the bad
in Egypt.” It was published in the Online edition of the Review on July 3,
2014.
The article is supposed to be an account of the
considerations that were being continually assessed by the Obama Administration
with regard to the events unfolding in Egypt during the period that the people
of that country were deciding for themselves what direction their country
should take. But you don't have to go too far down the article to realize that
this is not a human brain doing the thinking; it is a load of moral syphilis
that must have been injected into the skull at the moment that the child
Spencer was about to start reasoning.
You know all that because the 16 words that make up the
first half of the opening paragraph tell you that Spencer Case does not have a
human brain with which he can relate to humanity. He says this: “Caught between
military dictatorship and Muslim Brotherhood rule, Egyptians face a choice
between bad and worse.” This shows that the kid has no idea what the people of
Egypt were processing during the 2 years of their revolution. Yes, Case
displays ignorance, and anyone can be ignorant, but there is more to it than
that. It is that even if he were to be hit in the face with a ton of facts and
good explanations, he still won't get it. Just look at the second half of his
opening paragraph and judge for yourself.
This is where you see a demonstration that the kid was
robbed of even the ability to understand how his government operates, and how
it relates to the other governments. Here is what he says: “Through its
rhetoric and aid policy, Obama administration has consistently favored the
worst of the bad lot.” Well, if only he had a brain that allowed him to
understand it was the people of Egypt that voted for the Brotherhood then
decided to reverse their decision; he would have realized that the Obama
Administration, like all foreign administrations, had no say in the matter. It
was a decision for the people of Egypt to make, and they made it. Period.
Blind to the reality that sovereign people make decisions
for themselves; the kid could not grasp the necessity for the Obama
Administration to articulate its own values, and then wait till the dust
settled in Egypt before making a decision as to what kind of relationship it
will have with that country. But, like the one who tried to teach daddy how to
make babies, Spencer Case parrots what someone stuffed in his skull. Here is a
part of that rant: “Responsible foreign policy requires the ability to
distinguish between bad outcomes, and a willingness to accept something less
than the desirable when necessary.” Well, this is what the Administration did.
What else is there?
The “what else” in the last question is the rest of what was
stuffed in the skull of Spencer Case, and what he continues to parrot. Here it
is: “This line of thinking has led to policies that favor Morsi and the Muslim
Brotherhood.” Again, he speaks of favoritism by the American Administration
when the favoritism that matters is that of the people of Egypt at the time
that they made their first choice, and when they reversed their decision.
So now you want to know who the people are that inject moral
syphilis in every up-and-coming skull in America such as Spencer Case. And he
tells you who they are. He calls them critics. He writes this: “Morsi's
competitor was denounced by critics.” Later on in the article, he writes this:
“Critics were especially galled that the Obama administration...” And this is
what syphilis does when it gets inside an immature skull. It tells it to
dismiss the will of the people of Egypt, and tells it to denigrate its own
government unless that government does what the “critics” want it to do. And
this signals the emergence of a new form of governance called democracy by
critics.
But who are these critics? They are the lobbyists who
operate inside the beltway. And right now there are two big ones that count in
America. There is one called the gun lobby handling some of the domestic
policy. And there is one called the Jewish lobby handling the foreign policy as
well as the balance of the domestic policy.