Imagine what it would be like if Jeffrey Epstein had not been caught, that he was still alive, and that he publicly shed a cupful of tears for the victims of Andrew Cuomo, then offered to help them heal their emotional wounds by coming to one of his mansions and spending weekends having a fun time in the company of his beloved Ghislaine Maxwell. Would you not consider this kind of performance to be an act of extreme pornography?
Keep that at the
back of your mind, and think of another scene:
Imagine what it
would be like if Clifford D. May were not known to be a Jewish extremist, that
he is believed to be an ordinary American pundit, that he simultaneously sheds
tears for the plight of those suffering under tyrannical rule, while also
celebrating both the subjugation of the Palestinian people and the cancellation
of North American citizens who do not toe the Jewish line. Would you not
consider this kind of situation to be an act of extreme pornography?
Now stop imagining
and get back to the real world where you'll encounter an act of moral
pornography that eclipses anything you can imagine. The act came in the form of
a column written by Clifford D. May under the title: “The brave few on the
front line for freedom deserve America's support,” published on April 6, 2021
in The Washington Times.
There was a time
when being free of tyranny originating from outside the country, was defined as
being rid of a colonial power occupying your homeland. As to being free of
tyranny originating from one's own government, it was defined as being able to
leave the country in pursuit of better opportunities elsewhere.
It is that in the
first instance, you are deprived of freedom because you are governed by a
foreign power according to rules that are alien to your culture. If you disobey
deliberately or unintentionally, you are punished for reasons that make no
sense to you. As to the second instance, you are deprived of freedom because
you live in a system that offers little or no opportunity to improve your lot,
while being prevented from leaving the country even if you're offered a
lucrative contract to work in a foreign country. That’s what it means to lose
your freedom.
In view of all
this, what is it that Clifford May is talking about? He is talking about an
organization that calls itself Freedom House whose understanding of the word,
“freedom” is as good as Jeffrey Epstein's understanding of the word, “decency.”
Freedom House has a singular, shallow understanding of freedom, which it
defines as recognizing that government is the enemy of the people therefore,
opposing your own government sets you free.
It is for this
reason that Freedom House ranks highest on its totem pole of the free, the
rebels who do battle against their own governments. And this happens to be the
starting point from which Clifford May has conveniently picked up the
conversation to add his two-cents worth of nonsense to the ongoing debate. Here
is how he started this part of the conversation: “You should know the names and
stories of those risking their lives to keep the flame of liberty from being
extinguished,” and he named a few. Here are his words:
“High on my list is
Aleksei Navalny, the most significant opposition figure in Russia. Move on to
Hong Kong's Jimmy Lai, a 72-year-old media tycoon, and Martin Lee, an
82-year-old attorney who has advocated compromise with China. Next, we go to
Lebanon where Lokman Slim, a Lebanese patriot, boldly criticized and challenged
Hezbollah when he was gunned down. The international community called for his
killers to be brought to justice. That call has gone unanswered. Next, within
the borders of Iran, people have risked death, torture and imprisonment to
stand up to the [government]. Ruhollah Zam was a journalist who documented
those protests. In December, he was convicted of corruption and hanged”.
So, this is the
definition that Clifford May has borrowed from Freedom House and is peddling to
his readers as being a perfect formula. It is a definition that says to rebels
around the world, they can count on the Freedom House of Moral Prostitution to
praise and encourage them while also damning the government that’s trying to
discipline them, as they disrupt the peace and tranquillity of the country,
making life miserable for their compatriots.
As to Israel, it
will not even be mentioned as doing something wrong when it bombs Palestinian
families in their homes, kills healthy Palestinian youngsters to harvest their
internal organs, steals Palestinian underground water, and arms the settlers to
ransack Palestinian agricultural fields … and much worse.
If you want to know
why this double standard exists, the answer is simple. It is that most of those
who pretend to care about the wellbeing of others, are charlatans who only care
about themselves. In one way or another, they are affiliated with Israel or any
one of the organizations that work for it.
Clifford May ends
his article by saying that he finds it difficult to disagree with Freedom House
when it chides actors that are willing to trample democratic principles in the
pursuit of power.
If only he and Freedom House knew that those actors are the very rebels they praise and encourage. Or maybe they do know, but that their purpose in life is to perpetuate this state of moral pornography.