If you want to create a true definition for the expression
“raving mad,” you need to find a club where the extreme lunatics rave – and ask
one of the members to write a manifesto for the group. Luckily, as it happened,
someone that fits the bill did just that.
He is Josh Gelernter who wrote: “Let's Take a Cue from
Brexit and Leave the U.N.,” a manifesto that was published on July 2, 2016 in
National Review Online. The title alone – which equates membership in the
European Union with membership in the United Nations – says that this guy
defines “raving mad” as well as any member in the club of the self-appointed
leaders of Jews.
Because you want to find out what goes on inside the head of
someone like him, you proceed to read the manifesto. Doing so, you encounter
his main point, which is to the effect that the UN was founded to preserve
freedom as stated in its 1942 Declaration, but later produced a Charter that
seeks to preserve peace. And it is this shift from freedom to peace that caused
the UN to fail and to go corrupt, he says.
He explains that tyrants maintain the peace but deprive
their people of freedom. He finds this situation to be a bad tradeoff. He cites
North Korea , Laos , Burma
and Turkmenistan as being
nations at peace, and speculates that if the people were in their right mind,
they “would choose to go back in time and live in London during the blitz than live in those
countries.” He pushes the envelop further and speculates that “American slaves
were at peace in the South, but I suspect they preferred the Civil War”.
Those two moments of speculation represent the foundation
upon which he formed the view that to all human beings, the combination of war
and freedom is preferable to the combination of peace and imposed order. He
thus calls on the “civilized world to say 'To hell with world peace – give us
world freedom'”.
To justify that stance, he attributes freedom to the system
of governance known as liberal democracy, and further states: “It's a
well-established fact that democracies never go to war with one another.”
Because absence of war means peace, he makes the point that when freedom is
established, peace follows … a detail that must have escaped the folks at the
UN, the reason why it did the thing in the reverse order and failed.
All of the above being the paradigm through which his mind
navigates, his vision for a perfect world boils down to this: “The U.S. pays the
U.N. $8 billion every year … Let's pull out of the U.N., let it crumble, and
put our money toward a new organization: a United Free Nations [UFN] whose goal
will be to bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any
foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty”.
Who might those friends be? you ask. Well, he already said
that Europe was anti-democratic which, by his
own definition, does not qualify as a group of free nations. He also dismissed Russia , China
all the Arab countries, Vietnam ,
Indonesia (and most likely
all the Muslim countries), the Republic
of Congo (and most likely all the
Sub-Saharan countries,) and Venezuela
(and most likely all the Latin America
countries.) And this begs the question: With all these undesirables, who is
left that might qualify to become a member of the UFN?
Before we answer that question, we need to see what the 1942
Declaration – which he lauded – would have required. It says this: “(1) Each
government pledges to employ its full resources, military or economic, against
[the enemies] … (2) Each government pledges not to make a separate armistice or
peace with the enemies.” Ouch! We just hit a snag. The reality is that no
country on the planet will cut ties with all those “undesirables” to be in good
standing with the UFN, and be eligible for membership.
Is this a problem? Apparently not ... at least not from the
way that the Jewish opinion makers have behaved in America . For decades, their bent
has been to drive a wedge between America and everyone else. When
ordinary people ask “why they hate us?” the Jews respond with this: “They hate
you because you're big, and you have everything they want but cannot have” – a
flattery that disarms the questioner and silences him.