There are two kinds of relationships among the nations of
the world. People refer to them in physical terms for simplicity and clarity.
Thus, if a relationship is said to warm the hearts, it is called 'cordial.' If
it is conducted from a distance, it is referred to as 'arm's length'
relationship.
Of course, these kinds of relations exist among human beings
too. But there is a third kind that exists among humans and not nations: it is
the conjugal relationship. Unlike the other two which represent an open
relation where nations are free to maintain contact with other nations, the
third kind points to exclusivity among a pair of humans. In most instances, an
exclusive relationship of this kind is seen to represent a healthy sort of
fidelity among those that engage in it. But when that kind of a relation is
practiced among nations, it points to a situation that is unhealthy, weird and
troubling.
But does a carnal-like relationship among nations actually
exist; perhaps one that is too subtle to discern? The answer to that question
could be yes, or it could be no. The truth is that someone is trying to forge
this kind of relationships with other nations but is failing. Well, let's say,
they may not be failing absolutely in at least one instance. These are the Jews
who managed to bring America
and Israel
so close to each other; they boast there is “no daylight” between them.
Metaphorically speaking, when two jurisdictions are this
close to each other, they conjure up an image that is odd and mystifying. And
yet, whether or not the closeness between America
and Israel
is real, it is the image that the Jews relentlessly communicate to the world.
They mean to say that America
will always protect Israel
no matter what the latter does. And the astonishing part is that instead of
rejecting these claims, the Americans reinforce them by repeating that there is
no daylight between the two countries.
The world has gotten that message alright, but the claims
did more than communicate something to the world. In fact, they did as much to
shape the American character as they did to paint America 's image for the world to
see. You can study how this situation came about when you go over two articles
where the relationship among nations is measured in carnal-like intensities.
And where the Jews of America react to rejection like the lover that's denied
the opportunity to conjugate.
One article came under the title: “Anti-Americanism Across
the Continent and the subtitle: “Affection for Russia unites French presidential
candidates – and many other European politicians.” It was written by John
Vinocur and published on November 8, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal. The other
article came under the title: “Anti-Israel Conference Bans Opposing Viewpoints,”
written by Jenna Lifhits, and published on November 7, 2016 in the Weekly
Standard.
Saying that in Europe, “anti-Americanism appears
increasingly like a common denominator,” John Vinocur draws up a list of the
instances in which America
was trashed in speeches delivered by European leaders. The speeches were so
intense that a pro-American member of the French Parliament described the scene
from what could be an American point of view. He said this: “I'm flabbergasted
to observe my friends moving in an anti-American direction”.
He did not stop here but went on to say: “There is also a
kind of veneration of Vladimir Putin. It appalls me.” And this is the
exclusivity that's saying, “you cannot love Putin and America at the same time,” which mystifies the
observers about America .
Furthermore, it leads to the notion that: You're with us or against us,” an
idea that is so unhealthy, weird and troubling to the Europeans, they reject it
off-hand.
But how did that attitude develop in America ? You
get the answer to that question by studying the Jenna Lifhits article. She
tells the story of students at George Mason University (GMU) having a shared
point of view and coming together to promote it. Like all instances of this
kind, Jewish provocateurs organized by the Jewish establishment, insisted on
being let into the group to present an opposing point of view, but were kept
out.
Of course when Jews hold meetings of their own, they don't
let outsiders in so as not to be disturbed. But that reality was lost on the
Jews of GMU. They reacted impulsively to their rejection, taking it personally
like the lover that is denied the opportunity to conjugate. And Jenna Lifhits
was there to air their grievance.