Human beings have an ambiguous relationship with the image
of the other. We like what looks different from us because we like variety and
are amused by it. However, we tolerate the company of the other only as long as
we have no reason to fear it. But the moment that something happens to reveal
that the other represents danger, we distance ourselves from it, and never
forget how it looks in case we encounter it again.
Still, it can happen that things unfold in such a way as to
compel us to be in the company of others. In this case, we instinctively begin
to work on changing the other, and make it look like us. The reason for this is
not simply aesthetic; it is existential at its roots. That's because when we work
on changing the other, we make ourselves a strong leader while making the other
a weak follower. This tends to reassure us that the other will not get ahead of
us; a situation that guarantees our security.
However, this strategy is not always free of danger. That's
because the other may combine the strength we helped it develop with the
strength we failed to detect in it – to end up with a combination that
surpasses our strength. This will allow it to overtake us – and spare us or
harm us – depending on its instinct and how we treated it while instructing it.
In fact, the social unease that used to prevail in America at one time had to do with
the fear that the Whites developed when Blacks began to display an uppity
tendency.
Because America is made of people that usually left a bad
situation in the old country, and usually met with success in the new country,
America developed the tendency to try and change the old countries in a drive
to make them look a little like itself in matters of governance, industry and
finance. Several doctrines were developed in this regard, and were implemented
with results that range from good to indifferent to disastrous.
The good happened in two places. It happened when the
Europeans fought each other viciously, and then called on the Americans to help
them pull out of their morass. It also happened when the Japanese turned
against their neighbors then made the mistake of turning against the Americans.
They were defeated, and America
imposed its doctrines in some parts of Asia
while some other parts of the Continent willingly chose to adopt the American
methods.
In other places around the world, mainly Latin America and
the Caribbean , some countries experimented
with the American ideals but then turned indifferent towards them. When America tried
to interfere, the locals revolted and developed anti-American sentiments.
That's still there but things may change now that America
kissed Cuba
and made up with it.
As to the countries where America met with disastrous
results, they fall mainly in the regions of the globe where ancient
civilizations once rose, and where they left a strong tradition that may not
always suit modern times but is too difficult to shed – and in some places, too
slow to marry with the new. These places would have remained indifferent to America 's doctrines except for the fact that the
Jews saw an opportunity to implement their own agenda by pretending to
implement America 's
agenda.
That would be the Middle East
where serenity used to be the norm, and where chaos has reigned since the
advent of the Jews. The situation was made worse when the Jews took control of America 's foreign policy and dragged the
superpower into a region of the globe that can easily become America 's Vietnam on steroid. A three-sided
melodrama is unfolding at this time; a situation in which America , the
Jews and the collective Arab/Muslim world represent the three sides.
The problem for America
in a nutshell is that the Jews wish to impose on those countries the governance
part of America 's
doctrine but not the industrial or financial parts. They wish to see the
governance that will allow them to infiltrated those countries and dominate
them the way they pulled it off in America . But they fear that the
industrial and financial development of those countries will eventually mesh
with the ancient traditions and keep the Jews out. Thus, their fantasy is to
see a democratic but otherwise backward Middle East and North
Africa .
In essence then, while the Jews are pushing America to “democratize” the Middle
East , they also push it to destroy the infrastructure of the
countries in the region as fast as these countries develop. They once teamed up
with the French and the Brits to attack Egypt 's
Suez Canal, and they incited the Americans to deny that country the ability to
develop the Aswan
region. Subsequent to that, they did it to Iraq
and to Libya .
They are now doing it to others in a more or less open
fashion. With this in mind, read Michael Makovsky's latest creation which came
under the title: “Deal Brings Iran Closer to Obtaining Nuclear Weapons
Capability,” published on July 24, 2015 in the Weekly Standard. Here – Makovsky
who should be thought of as one of the most slippery snakes in the group of
Jewish debaters – is lending his subtle voice to the argument that Iran is
preparing to annihilate the world and go down with it, which is why it must be
lapped for breakfast before it devours the world at lunch time.
Having a deal with Iran
means having peace with Iran .
This will have the effect of nullifying the Jewish effort to sabotage that
country's program to modernize. And this is why the Makovsky's of this world
are desperately trying to keep the animosity going between America and Iran .