My siblings and I were exposed to many
languages and cultures, traveling and residing in many places as we did while
growing up. Being young and genetically programmed to learn the language in
which we are immersed, we adapted quickly to the local cultures and became
fluent in the various languages.
We then went back to Egypt, and were
immersed in the Arabic language, which we spoke on a daily basis. But we also
continued to speak French because it was the language in which we studied at
school. But despite the pressure from the Arabic and French, we did not forget
the other languages, ranging from the Italian to the Amharic and the other
dialects we had learned previously.
We then came to Canada and settled in
Toronto where we had to learn English because it was the only game in town. To
our amazement, we discovered something profound. It was that the English
language was the easiest to learn even though we learned it at an older age.
And that's not all because we also discovered that English had another effect
on people. It forces those who speak it to forget the languages they learned
previously, causing them to also discard the cultures that came with those
languages.
These observations helped me formulate two
tentative theories; one pertaining to America and one to Britain. In America,
the public is hanging on to its English language and culture as strongly as
ever despite the appearance that they were contaminated by the Judeo-Yiddish
culture. In fact, when you examine the situation closely, you find that there
is a wide gulf between what the ordinary people want, and what the information
and entertainment media spew day in and day out. And because the political
elites live in that milieu, they are the ones tainted by the Judeo-Yiddish
culture that the public so fervently despises.
I believe that something similar is
happening on the Island of Britain, with the added complication that the
British public continues to be gripped by the rivalry it has developed over the
centuries with the other powers on the European Continent, especially France
and Germany. This explains, at least in part, the Brexit disarray that is
confusing the world as well as the Brits themselves.
Out of this politico-cultural cauldron,
comes an American pundit who grew up in Britain then returned to America where
he writes a column for The Washington Examiner. He is Tom Rogan whose latest
work came under the title: “Bowing to Beijing, France's Macron betrays the
liberal international order,” published on November 6, 2019. You'll discover
you're really at a loss if you try to find out which influence motivates Tom
Rogan the most. Your sense of loss gets even deeper if you try to find out from
his writing, which influence motivates the British people the most.
Rogan attacks President Macron of France
in his column because the French President is in China assisting America's
adversary, says the columnist. But how is Macron assisting China? He is doing
it, says Rogan, by signing a $15 billion deal with Beijing. Fifteen billion
dollars? That's all? What's 15 billion dollars when America does nearly a
trillion-dollars-worth of trade with China? Well, Rogan doesn't answer these
questions.
But he goes on to accuse the French
President of practicing a liberal internationalism that is paper-thin. Because
Rogan does not define what that is, you tend to ignore it. But as you try to
move on to something else, you catch the writer in the act of defining that
term––not directly but––indirectly by demolishing his own thesis. Here is how
he did it: “His [Macron's] effort to further integrate the European Union, his
support for a global effort to reduce carbon emissions, and his robust support
for NATO, do reflect liberal internationalism in action.” Still, however, you
can't figure out what exactly the thing he calls liberal internationalism
really is.
You keep looking for clues in the article,
searching for what might give a definitive definition to Tom Rogan's expression:
liberal internationalism. But all that happens is that you hit on something which
tells you this guy is so motivated by hate for China, he cannot see that he may
be contradicting himself … or maybe not. He is certainly confusing the hell out
of the reader.
In fact, having criticized the Sino-French
trade deal, Rogan went on to accuse the Chinese President Xi Jinping of working
to reshape, “the international order of free trade.” Well? Did Rogan mean to
say that Xi Jinping was for and against free trade simultaneously? Was that
meant to be a mystery?
Still, Rogan went further and added the
stipulation that Xi Jinping was working to reshape free trade away from the
American umbrella. Maybe this is a clarification of what goes on inside Rogan's
head.
But if that's true, it means that Rogan is
saying free trade is good as long as the nations of the world do not trade with
each other, but only trade one-on-one with America.