When parliamentary democracy took roots in a number of places on the European Continent, the development happened at a time when these places were ruled by lords, monarchs and similar figures.
Even though the Democratic Movement relegated these
figures to being ceremonial heads of state, giving Parliament the task of
running the country, the party in power was said to be the monarch’s government
whereas the opposing party was called the loyal opposition, as if to mean loyal
to the monarch.
So named, the role of the opposing party was well
defined. It was to oppose the governing party, which meant opposing the
monarch’s government. But because the party could not be disloyal to the
monarch, it had to be the loyal opposition. Practically speaking, the
opposition party could not oppose for the sake of opposing. It could oppose
only if it believed it had better solutions to the country’s problems.
Whereas democracy started on this ideal note, things gradually
deteriorated to eventually become the mudslinging that is the hallmark of those
who today, continue to call their system a governing democracy. And while the
deterioration was taking place, it proved to be contagious. That is, the
principles of democracy that had migrated to the rest of society, including the
press, deteriorated in tandem with the political governance, and took the press
down with it.
As can be imagined, the unfortunate part is that the
deterioration of one, reinforced the deterioration of the other. That is, the
more that the political setup deteriorated, the more it dragged down the media
setup, and vice versa. Thus, what we have today in the parliaments and the
media of the so-called democracies, is a form of political and literary mudslinging
that does not help improve what parliaments are doing or what the media are
advising them to do.
Whereas these developments followed their natural course
the way that did all movements since ancient times — they appear apparently out of
nowhere, rise to glory and then disappear — something exuding the scent of
artificiality had been brewing in America. It is that the Jews found in that
country something they never encountered anywhere else during the thousands of
years they wandered around the globe. What they found in America was a
tolerance for abusive behavior not permitted anywhere else at anytime since the
beginning of time. And so the Jews went full throttle obnoxious in America.
Adhering to a Stone Age philosophy of life they elevated
to the level of a religion, the Jews mixed a dose of primitive savagery with a
dose of modern psychology, and produced a cocktail that took the Americans a
long time to decipher and grasp. But when they did, it was a repeat of the “what’s
old is new again” story. It is that America discovered what the world had known
about the Jews. That is, what the Jews say to defame others, is what they see
in themselves looking in the mirror. The Jews always knew they were the horror
they attributed to others. Now the Americans know it too; and things do not
bode well for the Jews in the America that is developing.
One of the Jews that does not seem to understand this
simple reality, is Debra Cagan. This is why you’ll find that she wrote an
article under the title: “Team Biden is sacrificing Ukraine for Russian and
Iranian oil,” published on March 7, 2022 in the New York Post. This piece is a
classic example of the modern opposition that mixes primitive savagery with back-alley
psychology.
Cagan’s first sentence should sound the alarm to anyone
that attempts to read her article. See for yourself. The sentence reads as
follows: “It should not have been a difficult decision for the Biden
administration.” Do you see it? This is so very Jewish, it is like discovering
a dead cockroach in every bagel they give you to it. What these people do is
try to score points, not by offering constructive criticism, but by denigrating
someone’s work, suggesting that it was done so badly in the past, it cannot be
fixed now. And this is why they never contribute to doing something
constructive. What they do instead is suggest taking over the operation, or
they insult everyone around and disappear.
Here, in condensed form, is how else Debra Cagan chose to
practice opposition of the primitive and savage kind, hoping to score points
she has not earned:
“Team Biden failed to act on the economic engine powering
Putin’s ambitions before he escalated into a devastating war. The time to shut
off Russia’s fossil lifeline has long passed. Replacing Russian oil with
other sources would have been relatively easy even a few months ago. Not
anymore. How did we get here? Multiple US administrations have used varying
levels of punishment against other nations. Some are singled out for permanent
opprobrium, and others barely receive a slap on the wrist. Russia was in the
wrist-slap club. Venezuela received maximalist pain through sanctions in 2019.
Then there is Iran, which has always managed to extort its way back into the
good graces of those foolish enough to believe Tehran’s latest tale”.
And that’s what tells you why Debra Cagan wrote that
article in the first place. It was not to analyze and explain an increasingly
complex situation that continues to develop on the global stage. It was to
insult America for failing to put an end to the rise of Iran early on — something
that could have been done only if America bombed that country into the Stone
Age.