It is the nature of high ranking individuals among the
species that have developed a social organization, to fight for maintaining their
position in the organization the higher their ranking. You see this tendency
among the felines, the canines, the apes, the human beings and many others.
You also see the same sort of behavior among most human
organizations which are, after all, populated by human beings. This is true of
a small enterprise, for example, as much as it is of a large institution or
even a country. That's because institutions become colored by the character of
those who run them.
When in the wild, it is easy to see and study the fights
that erupt between the individuals at the top of the food chain and their
challengers because they are all guided by their instinct, and they do not
abide by an etiquette requiring them to behave like gentlemen or gentle ladies.
In fact, much of the audio-visual footage that's made about nature is devoted
to recording this aspect of wildlife.
Though the instinct motivating us, human beings, is the same
as that of the lower species, we have learned to keep it in check by the power
of our reason. As long as this condition is maintained, very little of what we
call “tension” between individuals rises to the surface. But there comes a time
when that condition breaks down, and fight erupts in the open. It may still not
come to physical blows, but sometimes it does. If and when this happens between
countries, open warfare ensues.
There was a time in the aftermath of the Second World War
that America was so powerful, it sat at the pinnacle of the food chain. No one
challenged it because no one could. But even if someone had the might to rival
it, they would not have challenged America because the country was seen as a
force for good.
Still, nothing remains the same for ever, and seven decades
after that glorious period, America finds itself challenged by both the mighty
and the meek of the planet. Some of the reasons why this is happening have to
do with the fact that other nations have advanced enough to express the
resentment that yesterday's superpower is flaunting its might unnecessarily.
Other reasons have to do with the fact that the culture of America has changed
for the worse in many other respects as well.
Changing at a speed considered too fast for a country,
America shifted from a culture of optimism to that of pessimism in a few
decades. From flying high on the wings of the pioneers that sought the unknown
to befriend or to conquer, America's culture was brought down by the
Judeo-Yiddish frightened spirit which sees a Nazi salute in every gesture, a
secret code in every word, a gas chamber around every corner and a Holocaust
waiting to happen in every tomorrow.
Thus, from welcoming the progress of others as it used to
do, and from seeking to deepen its dealings with them so that all may progress
and forge a bright future for everyone, America was made to believe that the
progress of others now poses a threat not only to its supremacy but to its very
existence.
Commanded by the Jews, who riddled it with their
Judeo-Yiddish culture, America adopted the policy of flaunting its diminishing
might by threatening others with imagined options on the table. But instead of
scaring everyone, this attitude has forced the mighty and the meek to respond
by arming themselves and be ready for when America will listen to the Jews and
turn foolish again.
You get a sense of all this when you read the editorial that
came under the title: “Putin's Advances in Syria” and the subtitle: “The
Kremlin solidifies its strategic gains for backing Assad,” published on July
31, 2017 in the Wall Street Journal.
If you didn't know who the editors of the Wall Street
Journal were, you'd scratch your head wondering why someone would write a piece
like this at all. What you see is a description of two sovereign nations,
Russia and Syria, doing what is best for them. The Journal editors lament this
situation and blame the success of the two sovereigns on a previous American
president that could have scored the same success but did not, they claim.
That's a big lie because the truth is that the Jewish
editors deliberately ignored that America never planned to score that same sort
of success in Syria. Commanded by the Jewish leaders, America was seeking a
regime change in that country, a success that would have given a great boost to
the Judeo-Israeli hegemonic scheme for the region.
The American president of the time saw through this scheme
and refused to give-in to his base instinct or that of the Jews by starting a
war that would have further diminished America. Instead, he behaved like a
gentleman, and this is what the editors of the Wall Street Journal are
lamenting.