In the age of information overload that's upon us, if
someone doesn't know something, it's because he doesn't want to know it.
Surely, we can sympathize with that stance given that – at one time or another
– we all said: I just don't care about this matter anymore, and I don't want to
hear about it again.
In fact, there are reasons why someone would rather not know
the truth about something, choosing to live in ignorance about it. One such
reason could be that he believes the truth is constantly changing with the
circumstances, and that the prevailing circumstances are not propitious for the
kind of truth he wants to hear about. And so, he waits for the circumstances to
change and for a new truth to establish itself. This stance is a little harder
to defend, but some kind of defense can still be mounted for it.
What cannot be defended is to know what the prevailing truth
is, and work against it while waiting for the circumstances to change when the
truth that’s favorable to you finally prevails. It must be said, however, that
playing this game is a dangerous gamble because to work against the truth is to
tempt fate. And that's the sort of thing that will crush you now or crush you
later – but crush you, it will.
When you adopt this attitude, you say that even though you
know what the prevailing truth is, you don't know what to do with it except
work to defeat it. Like it or not, this is precisely the stance that the Jews
have taken for centuries. It is the reason why they never achieved anything,
and never fully integrated into the family of humankind.
Now get this: despite the common knowledge that the Foundation
for Defense of Democracies is nothing more than a comical outfit pretending to
be a giant in research and thinking, it has provided enough material that can
be used to illustrate the points discussed above. Two of its fellows: Reuel
Marc Gerecht and his boss Clifford D. May wrote articles that show how the
theory works.
Reuel Gerecht wrote: “The Secular Republic of Iran,” an
article that also came under the subtitle: “In a theocracy, political protests
will always have religious implications.” It was published on January 5, 2018
in the Wall Street Journal. Before that, on January 3, 2018, he had published: “The
Worst Thing for Iran 's
Protesters? U.S. Silence,” published on January 3, 2018 in the New York Times.
As to Clifford May, he wrote: “Eruption in Iran ,” a column that also came
under the subtitle: “And it's not just the economy, stupid.” It was published
on January 2, 2018 in The Washington Times.
The truth that was hidden from the North American public was
finally revealed by Reuel Gerecht on January 5, 2018. What follows is a
condensed version of how he describes Iran the way that the world knows
it. Compare this description with the way that Iran had been described on this
continent, and you'll know what the difference between night and day looks
like:
“Is the Islamic Republic's religious identity in transition?
Is Islam in Iran
losing its appeal? Is secularism rising? Iranians have learned that religious
rule secularizes. There is no Iranian cleric, philosopher or writer who can
attract large crowds with a defense of clerical rule. But plenty of thinkers
could fill a stadium with critiques of religious dictatorship. The Iranian left
has provided critiques of the holy law and its difficult integration into
democratic governance. Iran 's
seminaries have seen plummeting enrollments. Few organizations still carry the
revolutionary torch. Mosques all over Iran are empty at prayer times.
Only 3,000 of the country's 57,000 mosques are fully operational; some only
functioning during the religious months”.
Except for Israel
where religious fanaticism is accelerating to unprecedented levels – rammed
into the hearts and souls of youngsters, together with stories about the
Holocaust – the rest of the Middle East is
converting to secularism. But having converted a large segment of the American
population into fanatic evangelicals to better exploit it, the operators of America 's Jewish lobby promoted the myth that Iran is a
caldron of Muslim fanaticism. As a consequence, the Jewish lobby kept urging America 's political brass to treat Iran as such.
And that's the fictitious theme Clifford May is expanding in his article.
He praised Sen. Tom Cotton and Sen. Ted Cruz for issuing
statements based on that fiction. He complained that on the left, support for
the Iranian rebels was less robust. And he chided former President Barack Obama
for ignoring the missive commanding him to regurgitate what the Jews tried to
stuff in his mouth.
Then guess what happened, my friend. Well, the next day,
January 3, 2018, the same Reuel Gerecht who exposed the truth about Iran 's
secularism two days later, had published an article that harmonized with the
thinking of his boss. Here is what he said:
“[it was] a mistaken idea about American and European
policymakers that the Islamic Republic can evolve from theocracy to a
traditional regime or to democracy. This hope reinforces the view that Washington needs to keep
its distance from dissidents or risk compromising their position in Iranian
society. This awful Western analysis has Iranian progenitors. In the 1990s, the
Iranian left hoped that the Islamic Republic's theocracy would give way gradually
to something kinder and democratic”.
Thus, you can see how in response to Clifford May's views
expressed on January 2, Reuel Gerecht came out on January 3 and described as
“awful” the analysis he praised on January 5.
It looks like the Jewish movement to monopolize America , and have it work exclusively for the
benefit of Israel ,
is beginning to strain. Let's hope it will disintegrate because knowing about
something is not enough. What's important is to know what to do with the
information we gather.