What's
the difference between a machine and a conspiracy? Very little, is the answer.
In fact, both have so much in common, it's hard at times to tell the difference
between the cog of a conspiratorial group that has gone rogue, and the cog of a
machine that's beginning to act up.
Consider
this. You walk into the hall of a large corporation, and see that it is divided
into cubicles, each housing one employee doing a precisely defined job. You get
the sense that these are the cogs of a machine, who were trained to perform
well defined tasks at different moments so that in the end, the machine will
have produced the desired outcome.
Whereas
this is an artificial machine that was constructed according to the designs of
the human mind, it is a late comer in a domain that has been evolving naturally
for millions of years. In fact, it happens that when specimen of a flora and a
fauna get trapped on an island, such as the Galapagos for example, they undergo
modifications to their physical construct so as to adapt and become parts of an
ecological system that's working harmoniously with each other like a well-oiled
machine.
What
this demonstrates is that you need not have verbal communication to create a
functioning conspiracy. Whether you're looking at a bee pollinating a flower,
or a soccer player positioning himself to catch the ball his teammate will kick
in a direction known to him but no one else, or you're looking at politicians
executing a subtle strategy, you can be certain that the conspiracy will be
completed without verbal communication.
What
this creates in the end, is a paradigm that serves as a template to which every
newcomer will have to adapt to become a team player in the conspiracy. In fact,
we are fortunate to have the opportunity to witness the creation of a new
paradigm, and the chance that we'll see it develop into a full-blown conspiracy
… unless something drastic changes all that.
The
three specimen that began to lay the foundation for the new paradigm are Ben
Weingarten the pundit, Tiana Lowe the journalist and Marco Rubio the
politician. All three took part in a blitzkrieg against the World Health
Organization in a clear attempt to snatch it away from the highly fruitful relationship
it has developed with the government of China.
Ben
Weingarten wrote an article that came under the title: “As Long As Communist
China Controls The World Health Organization, It's Completely Unreliable,” and
the subtitle: “While the WHO gives China its imprimatur, evidence continues to
mount of China's malign role in every aspect of this epidemic.” It was
published on March 31, 2020 in The Federalist.
Tiana
Lowe wrote an article that came under the title: “World Health Organization's
China bootlicking and bad science has destroyed its credibility,” published on
April 1, 2020 in The Washington Examiner.
Marco
Rubio wrote an article that came under the title: “Health First?” and the
subtitle: “While its rank-and-file do essential work, its leadership shamefully
appeases Beijing –– and spurns Taiwan,” published on April 1, 2020 in National
review Online.
To
see how mutilated the Weingarten logic can get, recall the following vignette
as you read his article. The story unfolds like this: The American president is
giving a news conference talking about healthcare issues. A reporter from
sub-Saharan Africa interrupts him to ask, “What would you say to the new leader
of Black Lives Matter, demanding that he be given half of Texas on which to
build an independent Muslim nation?” And the American president responds by
saying that there is only one indivisible America.” And Weingarten, that
happens to be standing there, points the finger at the American President and
cries out: You're politicizing the issue, you're politicizing the issue!
Well,
my friend, nothing can be more Jewish than this because nothing can be more
screwy than this. It is the principle upon which Weingarten has constructed his
article in the grand conspiratorial scheme to create the paradigm he hopes will
culminate in the snatching of WHO away from China, or causing its destruction.
As
to Tiana Lowe, she makes it clear that she doesn't like anyone that likes
someone she hates. Since everyone in the world seems to like someone she might
hate, it follows that she hates everyone in the world, including herself. And
that brings out an interesting thought. She should run to head the WHO. This
way the world will hate the organization enough to work on destroying it, which
is what she wants to do.
As
to Marco Rubio, he is a bootlicker of the kind that Tiana Lowe hates. The
difference is that he is not licking Chinese boots; he is licking Jewish boots.
Maybe that's because the Chinese walk in the kind of terrain that Marco Rubio
does not find appetizing.
But
given that there is a burgeoning relationship between China and Israel, the
Chinese might want to ask the Israelis what kind of terrain will make Marco
Rubio lick Chinese boots.
If
the Israelis give out the secret, the paradigm that's in the making will take a
different turn. It will not snatch the WHO away from China but will turn Ben
Weingarten into a cog for a new propaganda machine that will work in America in
the service of the Chinese government.