The reason why the American Congress initially connived with
a handful of Jews, transferring a good part of the nation's governance to the
Jewish lobby, is because the Jews promised to bring relief to the overtaxed
brains of the men and women who exhaust themselves mentally running for office.
The Jews promised the victims of this so-called democratic process, the kind of
moral clarity that will reduce every decision they make to checking point A or
checking point B.
And so, in the same way that the grand strategy for dealing
with foreigners or with domestic opponents was reduced to the gambit 'you're
with us or you're against us,' Jewish moral clarity simplified the world to a
point where members of the Congress could see no shades of gray between what
was good and what was evil. For this to work, a slew of nouns and adjectives
were employed to indicate what was what. For example, freedom being a good
word, it was attributed to America 's
friends. Dictatorship being a bad word, it was attributed to America 's
enemies.
The gambit worked as long as the world was divided into two
spheres, each influenced by one of the two superpowers – one regarded as good;
the other as evil. But when the “evil” Soviet Union dissolved, and America became
the sole superpower, the force that made the gambit work began to weaken. This
prompted the Jews to hurry up and divide the world into two new spheres of
influence: one democratic and aligned with America ;
the other terrorist and bent on destroying America .
Soon, however, things began to get complicated because the
world fragmented into a multi-polar state, and a great variety of influences.
It is a place where a friend in one set of circumstances can be the enemy in
another set of circumstances. It is also a place where my friend's friend can
be my enemy; and my enemy's enemy can still be my enemy. It is the new hard
reality; the graveyard where simpleton Jewish moral clarity was buried.
This development shook the American intellectual landscape
so badly; it surprised those who are old enough to remember a bygone era when
people knew instinctively that the world was made of shades of gray. They
developed relationships with all kinds of people and all kinds of institutions,
each at a different level of trust and friendship. These relationships
continued to be maintained whether they turned out to be the friends or enemies
of other friends or enemies developed earlier.
So the question now is this: how do you deal with a world
that is this complicated from a vantage point at the helm of America 's
system of governance? Two American Presidents faced this question. The first
was George W. Bush who left the governance of America to minions that made a mess
of his presidency. The other is the current Barack Obama who employs the “horse
sense” that Ronald Reagan was famous for. Reagan followed his instinct rather
than the advice emanating from Jewish ideology. So does Barack Obama whose
moral clarity makes Jewish morality look, smell and feel like the spray of a
skunk.
You can sense the mental anguish suffered by those who grew
up bathed in the sea of Jewish moral clarity. Among these are the editors of
the Wall Street Journal who wrote a piece under the title: “Shadow Plays in Yemen ” and the subtitle: “Obama tries to back Saudi Arabia – but not enough to rile Iran .” It was
published on April 22, 2015 in the Journal. Like the subtitle suggests, Obama
is trying to establish the correct balance between two poles that can easily
tip-over and turn extreme.
Instead of seeing this diplomacy as a kind of wisdom
attributable to the horse sense that was known to Reagan, the editors of the
journal compare it to the move that was made by his predecessor, Jimmy Carter,
a President that also governed with the same kind of horse sense.
But the editors of the Wall Street Journal do not like what
they see. They call the Carter move a signal with “not much resolve,” and they
speculate that the Saudis will not be impressed by Obama's sending an aircraft
carrier to the coast of Yemen without signaling his preparedness to stop
Iranian ships, also on their way to Yemen.
From this point on, the editors go on to do all sorts of
mental somersaults trying to justify the taking of a hardline against Iran , but
collide each time against a reality that is as complex as the following:
“The Saudi move follows rumored back channel talks between Riyadh and Tehran .”
“Mr. Obama has insisted that the nuclear negotiations with Iran will not affect broader U.S. Mideast policy
or reshape U.S.
regional alliances.”
“In Syria
the U.S.
has gone out of its way not to hit regime targets.”
“The Administration also reached out to the Houthis as
recently as January.”
“Mr. Obama seems to believe that his nuclear concessions
will mollify Tehran
and moderate its behavior in the region.”
“Would Mr. Obama risk his nuclear deal over a naval
incident? The Iranians surely doubt it.”
Any of those moves would have been applauded if made by the
“Greatest Generation” that governed America right after Word War Two.
History would be discussing them now in glorious terms. But such is not the
case with Obama having made those decisions because the sea of Jewish moral
clarity flooding America
has severely disfigured the current intellectual landscape.