Who do you think is more dangerous to your teenaged boy or
girl? Would it be a boy that was abused by a priest and believes it is normal
to act with others the way the priest acted with him? Or would it be the priest
himself that's trying to lure your teenager into his 'circle of friends'?
If there is a grain of sanity inside your skull, you'd say
they are both bad, but the priest is infinitely more dangerous to your teenager
and to society as a whole. There are many reasons why this is so, and they
should be obvious to every reader. However, what is difficult to make-out is
that much of what happens in modern society can be analogized to that example
and yet, when we try to sort out the bad from the worse, we discover that it is
a difficult thing to do.
The reason is that modern society has so advanced it sorted
out what is good from what is bad from what is worse. The effect has been that
most people pretend to be good, and almost no one believes them. In fact, most
of us do bad things, but depending on how sophisticated the person is, each manages
to project an image of the self that’s better than they really are. And the
more sophisticated the bad person is, the better they hide their evil intent,
and the more dangerous they are to society.
For example, you might have a coworker that becomes visibly
temperamental at times. He is bad but not too dangerous because you know how to
avoid him when he starts acting up. You might also have a suave coworker that's
always flattering you while saying bad things about everyone else. And then you
discover that he is flattering everyone in their faces while telling them bad
things about others, including you. In addition, you discover that he has been
telling the temperamental worker the same sort of things, thus winding him up
to get nasty with everyone. And so, you determine that the apparently suave
coworker is more dangerous to you and to everyone at the office than the
temperamental one.
This kind of drama is also played out in a big way on the
international stage among state and non-state actors. Looking at them, we
discover similarities and differences in how the game is played in the office
and on the international stage. They are similar in that the action is almost
always improvised and spontaneous. The difference between them is that in the
office, the creators of the drama and the players are one and the same. By
contrast, the players on the international stage are usually politicians that
lack creativity, thus depend on whisperers to tell them what to say and what to
do. The whisperers can be close advisers or distant pundits offering advice
through the media.
One such whisperer is Clifford D. May. You can see what he
is whispering and to whom he is whispering it. This will help you determine if
he is a priest dedicated to saving souls, or he is a devil committing heinous
crimes while hiding inside the robe of holiness. He wrote: “Middle
East missions to accomplish,” a column that was published on April
17, 2018 in The Washington Times.
If in the language of politics and diplomacy 'defending
democracy' has come to represent the robe of holiness, Clifford May who
presides over the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, must be a high priest of
some kind. But what kind is that? To make that determination we look to see if
he is of the type that minds his own business and wishes that others do the
same in true 'live and let live' fashion – or if he is the type that goes
around badmouthing everyone to create fear and suspicion among them in a true
'divide and conquer' fashion?
Reading his column, we find that he structured the human
race the way that employees are structured in a company office. He speaks of
American values as being the model of high morality whereas the rest of the
world is made of “totalitarians who vow to destroy us.” He says this reality
comes through the attitude of the United Nations and that of Democratic former
President Barack Obama. Thus, Clifford May has managed to set half of America against
the other half and against the entire human race. The trouble is that he
neglected to tell which half of America
owns the model of high morality. Perhaps he meant the Republican half.
You comb through the column looking for clues and find that
he defines high morality as stealing the petroleum resources of Syria , and honoring Israel : the grand thief of
Palestinian properties. But that's the kind of attitude that Republican Dwight
Eisenhower rejected thoroughly. So, you're back to wondering – if not Democratic
or Republican – what part of America
is Clifford May lauding?
You find it to be a small group of Jews and their lackeys
calling themselves Neocons. Their preference, according to Clifford May, is to
trigger a high-intensity conflict as soon as possible because the alternative
will be to surrender America
and the West. But again, Clifford May neglected to say surrender to whom? Would
it be to Bashar Assad of Syria ?
Or would it be to Hassan Rouhani of Iran ?