We start this discussion by asking a number of questions.
Can the change in a so-called autocratic regime affect the
career of a journalist? The answer is yes. Okay. Can the change in a so-called
democratic regime affect the career of a journalist? This will have to be
proven. Okay then. Did the latest change in the regime of America affect
the career of Bret Stephens who is a journalist? The answer is yes.
Well then, going back to the earlier question, can the
change in a so-called democratic regime affect the career of a journalist? The
answer will have to be yes. Okay. Can we conclude from all this that there is
no difference between the two regimes when it comes to the organic relationship
that exists between the ruling authority in a sovereign jurisdiction and its
press corps? Once again, the answer will have to be yes.
This being the case, we must view the Bret Stephens
defection from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times as caused by a
switch in America 's
politico-diplomatic philosophy. What used to be an American philosophy similar
to that of Stephens' is now something else. And we can tell what that something
is not by analyzing the philosophy of Bret Stephens. This done, we can go from
there and deduce what America 's
new politico-diplomatic philosophy is starting to look like.
So the question: What is at the core of the Bret Stephens
philosophy? Simply put, what's there is neoconish. This means it is Jewish
centric in the sense that the interests of Jews occupy the center of the
politico-diplomatic universe while everything else, from the hard right to the
hard left, revolves around it. Politically speaking, it means there is not a
Democratic America or a Republican America; there is a bipartisan Jewish
America. Diplomatically speaking, it means there is not an America on one side or an Israel on the
other side; there is no daylight between the two sides.
This being the definition of what used to be America 's
internal political stance as well as its external diplomatic stance the neocons
falsely called it Pax Americana when in fact it was more like Pax
Judeo-Americana. It is that the real Pax-Americana had come into existence
right after World War II when the world was in ruin, and America emerged
as a superpower … but then something ominous happened.
It is that America
was infiltrated by the Jews who quickly dominated its institutions and changed
its character. From a normal superpower, it became a tool in the hands of World
Jury who tried to use it in vain attempts to dominate the world. And then it
happened that things began to change again in America , and Bret Stephens didn't
like what he was seeing, so he chose to defect.
He wrote a column that came under the title: “The Rise of
Dictatorship Incorporated,” published on March 3, 2018 in the New York Times.
Reading it, we detect a two pronged thrust. One prong being dedicated to his
attack on five countries, which he calls members of an axis of evil that's
coming back to life, having gone on a hiatus for a while. The other prong is
dedicated to his lamentation about America
and its allies doing nothing to stop that axis from dominating the Middle East … a serious challenge to the Pax
Judeo-Americana of his dream and the dream of World Jury.
The five countries of the axis of evil, according to Bret
Stephens, are Syria and the
four which helped it fight off the terror armies that were financed, trained,
armed and sent to topple the government of Syria . This was to be done in
accordance with a demonic blueprint drafted by the New-York/Tel-Aviv alliance;
the real axis of evil and deadliest thing ever to plague Planet Earth.
As to the four
countries that helped Syria
stop the march of that horrific alliance; they were – according to the list given
out by Bret Stephens – North Korea ,
Russia , China and Iran . But if, like he says, America and its allies will not confront those
countries, what does the new American philosophy pertaining to the Middle East , look like? Here is what Stephens says in
that regard:
“Coordinating and executing a military and diplomatic
strategy. We don't have one … A president who understands the benefits of Pax
Americana. We don't have one ... Requiring a belief in what used to be the free
world. We don't have that, either”.