How the snake stings and poisons the self

 Look at this headline: “The BBC isn't just too 'woke'––over Israel, it incites baseless hatred,” which says in brief that “the BBC incites hatred.” And this is a big accusation to throw at someone.

 

That headline identifies an article written by Melanie Phillips who must be thinking she caught the tiger by the tail, but like the snake that wandered in the wrong places and inhaled the wrong fumes, she stung herself and killed her cause before she could present it in any rational fashion.

 

The article was published in the Jewish News Syndicate on October 15, 2020, also under a subtitle that tells what Melanie Phillips intended to prove but failed to do so. Here is that subtitle: “For years, it [BBC] has uncritically recycled Palestinian propaganda as innately credible and true, while treating demonstrable factual Israeli statements as mendacious propaganda”.

 

Those of us who feel for the Palestinians and empathize with their pain enough to try helping them, felt bedeviled by the Jewish propaganda machine throwing accusations at the Palestinians without proving them or discuss them in detail so that we could parse them and rebuff them. But we can now do it thanks to Melanie Phillips who gave us a way to respond to such accusations.

 

One of the most vexing accusations had been that the Palestinians lived for no reason but to incite against the Israelis and the Jews in general. They had the accusation repeated in the echo chamber so often that prominent people in America and elsewhere mindlessly repeated it like a trained parrot. Most of the time, we could do nothing but ignore the accusation, and go on to discuss other things.

 

Well, we don't have to do this anymore because Melanie Phillips has used the word “incite” to set up an equivalence between the Palestinian view of their situation and the BBC view of the same Palestinian situation; one that Melanie Phillips has called incitement. The issue has been reduced to this equation: If it is legitimate for the BBC to see the plight of Palestinians the way that it does, it is legitimate for the Palestinians to describe their own plight the way that they do, and the way that does the BBC.

 

This being the sum total of Palestinian and BBC propaganda, what about the Judeo-Israeli propaganda? How do these people present their case? Well, we have right here a case study that is the quintessential bag of Zionist weaseling which they use instead of engaging in open debate with their opponents. What they normally do instead of debating, is point out to a higher authority that has ruled in their favor, having discussed the issue with them in hiding and behind closed doors. It is what Melanie Phillips tried to say has happened, but the attempt crushed her because, lacking enough material to work with, she was forced to make up the falsehoods that fell on her like a ton of bricks. Look what she did:

 

Her opening paragraph was a single sentence that went like this: “In recent weeks, there have been indications that the British government intends to try to bring the BBC to heel.” Wow, that will truly be a battle of the Titans. How will it go? How will it end? Tell us what were those indications? We're eager to know. Well then, if you're eager to know, here it is: “The prime Minister (of Britain) reportedly intends to install as the BBC's chairman someone who is prepared to challenge its embedded leftism.” But who was it that reported, and how did they know what they reported? Don't ask no questions, and I'll tell you no lies, says Phillips with her silence on this matter.

 

But not knowing how things will unfold from here on, and to make sure that her credibility as a journalist will not suffer much by what might happen, she thought it prudent to plant the following hedge at this point: “It is doubtful whether this as yet unknown individual will have any degree of success, it's vanishingly unlikely that it will change the BBC's appalling treatment of Israel”.

 

Underlying the dispute between the BBC and the Jewish propaganda machine, is the reality that after more than five decades of occupation, the Israeli stance in Palestine has increasingly come to look like a stubborn occupation whose aims are the same as those held by the occupiers of an earlier era.

 

The Brits having been occupiers, know exactly what the Jews of Israel are saying and doing, and know why the Palestinians respond the way they do. And so, like any experienced media organization, the BBC presents some programs form the Palestinian point of view, and some from the Israeli point of view. It is normal that when filmmakers work on a project that's supposed to reflect someone's point of view, they be sympathetic to that point of view. The BBC does that when treating both the Palestinian and Israeli stories.

 

The Jews object to that approach because, like the old colonial powers, they want the occupation to be discussed as if it were a good thing, and want those who resist it to be painted as bad people. The trouble is that the old description of the occupied being primitive savages who need to be tamed and educated, whereas the old description of the occupier as being the gentle trainer who will civilize and educate the savages, is no longer accepted by anyone in the world today.

 

So, the Jewish propaganda machine, of which Melanie Phillips is but a cog, came up with a different––yet the same kind of approach. It is painting the occupied Palestinians as the aggressors in their own country, and painting the invading Jews as the victims in someone else's country. Believe it or not, this is how Jewish logic works.

 

And so, that infamous machine wants the BBC to broadcast those kinds of images to the world. Anything less than that, is considered biased against the Jews who will whine from here to the end of time about being treated badly by the BBC simply because they are Jews.

Stark Admission that China is ahead of America

 Imagine you're the trainer for a car racer who keeps winning races.

 

A new race is announced, he gets into the car, you stay in radio contact with him, the race starts and for the first time, he falls behind as someone gets ahead of him. Do you think you'd be doing him a service telling him he's ahead when he is not?

 

Believe it or not, Tom Rogan has tried to do something like this, if not worse. To make his point, he wrote an article under the title: “Pursuing Shenzhen ambitions, China will double down on intellectual properties theft,” published on October 14, 2020 in The Washington Examiner. But as it turned out, while trying to show that America is still ahead of China, Tom Rogan proved that China is ahead of America and will stay that way.

 

Rogan began the discussion by making this assertion: “China lacks the technology industry to lead the world in global high-value exports.” Well then, does the rest of the article prove this point? No, it does not as you'll see in a moment. Still, however, immediately after making that assertion, Tom Rogan came to this conclusion: “To strengthen its position, Beijing will have to double down on intellectual property theft, and America will be the primary target.” This would be his guess based on the assertion he cannot prove.

 

He goes on to explain that China will double down on stealing American technology because of two reasons, one being that, “The United States is now denying China access to high technology software and hardware”.

 

What? What is he talking about? If the US is denying China access to its technology only now, it means that America was not denying it before. But not denying it before, means that what China was getting then, was not stolen. In other words, zero is what China has been stealing from America, according to Tom Rogan. And to double down on zero, like he says China is doing, means that China is still getting zero stolen technology from America. Is this paradox what Tom Rogan is trying to communicate? If yes, for what useful purpose?

 

Whatever it is, to strengthen his argument, Rogan did his own doubling down. Here is how that sounds like:

 

“After all, China lacks the three things that make the US technology industry so successful: a vast research and development base, attractiveness to high-value foreign talent, and the credible rule of law that protects their developments against competitor theft”.

 

Let's look at each of these three things separately:

 

First, whereas in the advanced economies, 10% or less of the research and development (R&D) base exist in universities and government owned laboratories, fully 90% or more exist on the premises of the industries themselves. For example, in the same way that drug and auto makers do their own research, so do most other industries. America used to lead the world in all categories of industry, but now that American industries have moved to China, so did the R&D they used to do in America. The point is that there is very little R&D to steal in America at this time, but there is much that can be stolen from China.

 

Second, let's ask this question: From where did America used to get most of its “high-value foreign talent?” From China more than anywhere else. So now that the talented Chinese are finding more opportunities in China, and now that America is closing the door on them, these talented people are staying home. They are doing in China the work they used to do in America. Just think about it, every future Eric Yuan of Zoom Video Communications who could be in America, employing American workers and adding to the American GDP, will now be in China, employing Chinese workers and adding to the Chinese GDP.

 

Third, Tom Rogan says that America has the “rule of law that protects the development of innovators against competitor theft.” Which competitors are these? If we think Chinese, we fall into the double down controversy that led us nowhere. But if we think of American companies stealing from each other, we wonder why would they not also steal from China as well? But if that's what they have been doing, it reveals the truth about Tom Rogan reversing reality by attributing the sins of Americans to the Chinese. And that's not a good thing to do.

 

As to Tom Rogan's claim that China lacks the technology to lead the world in exports, he is ignoring Huawei, Tik Tok, WeChat and many other Chinese products which are taking the world by storm. He tried to disparage Huawei near the end of his article by insinuating that it used to be successful because it relied on stolen American technology. But now that it cannot steal anymore, Huawei products are no longer successful, according to him. Well then, if this is true, why is it that America is blocking Huawei at home, and trying to block it abroad as well? It’s not because it is unsuccessful; it’s because it is too successful.

Technology is a double-edged Sword

 Everyone who is not a child knows that anything you use to achieve a constructive outcome can also be used to cause a destructive outcome.

 

That means anything which is used as a tool to facilitate the work that needs to be done, can also be used as a weapon to destroy what has been achieved. This is technology, and it has been used as a double-edged sword since the start of Civilization.

 

In fact, technology was used since primitive human beings lit up a fire to warm themselves on a cold night, and used it to set ablaze the village of their foes. From that time to this day, human beings have not ceased to create what nature has not given them, and have not ceased to improve on what they created.

 

And so, Clifford D. May stated a normal occurrence when he drew attention to, and complained about, “How Russia and China weaponize technology to manipulate the masses.” In fact, this happens to be the title of the article he wrote and published on October 13, 2020 in The Washington Times.

 

Since the use of technology for good and for ill, is a reality that will stay with us as long as we have a brain with which to think and innovate, the debate should be about how to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, and how to use future innovations to do more of what's constructive and less of what's destructive.

 

When we think in these terms, we need to divide the use of technology into an old era and a new era. The predominant technology of old era was mostly characterized by hardware. It ranged from the plowshare to the battle tank and everything in-between. As to the new era, it is mostly characterized by software that ranges in use from making a telephone call soliciting participation in a survey –– to the cyberattack that can shut down the power grid of a country … and every computer application between those two.

 

The development of the hardware was, for all practical purposes, a one-sided affair in the sense that it was the monopoly of the European West. Yes, the gun powder was invented by the Chinese and yes, artillery was invented by the Arabs, but when all that, as well as the alchemy of the Arabs reached Europe that was already advanced in the mining and forging of base metals, the result was the start of the mechanized warfare and colonialism. It was also the start of the Industrial Revolution and the system of governance that came to be known as liberal democracy.

 

Hardware is still with us and will be forever because we are physical beings ... and fragile ones at that. We need life support that ranges from the air we breathe to the food we eat to the clothes we wear to the shelter that protects us, and the vehicle that transports us; all of which are material products made by hardware. But more and more, the word technology––sometimes referred to as hi-tech––is prevailing over what is now called low-tech hardware. As to the hi-tech of the new era, it consists of the software that allows even a teenager from a Third World country to disrupt the operation of a bank in any of the advanced economies.

 

And so, whereas the old technologies were the monopoly of the Europeans, the new technologies have leveled the playing field by being accessible to anyone that wants them. And this brings us back to the Clifford May article which gives an incomplete, even distorted view of the new technologies' recent history. The article also fails to suggest how to protect against their destructive potential. Here is what May had to say in this regard:

 

“The Russian government's goal is to weaken our country; to diminish America's global role. External forces seek to divide us against each other, degrade our institutions, and destroy the faith of the American people in our democracy. These are the weapons deployed in the wars that Moscow and Beijing are waging against the US and the West. Other warfare tactics include cyberattacks, boosting extremist political parties, and encouraging protests. What will it take to defend America and its allies from such warfare, including disinformation offensives and high-tech falsification of election results? Lots of work by a list of US government agencies have not been up to the task in the past”.

 

So, the obvious question to ask is this: Why is it that when it comes to protecting America and its allies from cyberattacks, the US government agencies have not been up to the task? Well, you don't have to be a genius to figure out the answer. It is that those agencies are staffed with people of the low caliber, Clifford May level of competence.

 

In fact, what Clifford May has failed to do, is identify what America is doing that prompts other nations to want to retaliate. There was a time when America was so strong, and the rest of the world so weak, nobody dared to stand up to America when it imposed its own will on others. But that's no longer the case because America is no longer the untouchable.

 

And so, when analyzing a situation, the serious pundit must refrain from playing politics with the truth. He must tell it like it is because only the truth can lead the government agencies to make the right decisions on how to proceed and how to protect the country.

 

Until this happens, America will see itself outflanked at every turn by the big and the small.

Alan Dershowitz operating as an Alien Fifth Columnist in America

 Alan Dershowitz has contributed many dumb ideas to the public square, and it should not come as a surprise that he just contributed one more. To get a sense of the full dimension of his latest contribution, we need to dress up a short analogy. Here it is:

 

Imagine a friend of yours coming to you one day and saying that his neighbor is stark raving mad, and should be locked up in a mental institution. Okay, you say to yourself, maybe someday, someone close to your friend's neighbor will notice that the man is stark raving mad, and will have him committed.

 

A few days later, that same friends of yours comes to you and says that a coworker of his is stark raving mad, and should be locked up in a mental institution. It can happen, you say to yourself. Your friend is not the first person to have a neighbor and a coworker who are both crazy. Maybe someday, someone in management where your friend works will notice that their employee is stark raving mad, and will do something about it.

 

A few days after that, the same friend of yours comes to you and says he has a strong feeling you are stark raving mad, and should be locked up in a mental institution. Well, it was bound to happen, you say to yourself. You indulged your friend when he was calling others stark raving mad at a time it was clear he was the one that's stark raving mad. So, here he is now, calling you stark raving mad.

 

And that, my friend, is the story of Alan Dershowitz and those of his kind who pretend to speak in the name of the Jews as a collective. They call everyone they don't like a terrorist, accusing them of supporting or associating with real terrorists operating abroad. The phony Jewish leaders make this kind of false accusations, knowing that the only terrorist in the Middle East is Israel with which they associate; even enable to commit war crimes. America indulged these characters for too long, and here is Alan Dershowitz now calling terrorists, the peaceful American citizens who live normal lives in their own country.

 

In fact, that's what Dershowitz did in the article he wrote under the title: “AOC's Rejection of Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Crosses the Line From Extremism to Intolerance,” published on October 12, 2020 in the online Jewish publication, Algemeiner.

 

As you read the article, you cannot help but recall that invoking words such as “Holocaust” and “antisemitism” used to carry a sense of veneration and respect for the victims they affected. But the words were so exploited by those like Alan Dershowitz, they became diluted. The result is that the words now invoke the image of the Jew carrying a bagful of Benjamins and going home with it. Dilution is also what Dershowitz and company are doing to the word “terrorist”. Sooner or later the word will invoke nothing more than the image of an Israeli soldier pointing his gun at a Palestinian child.

 

Mindful of the fact that no Jewish leader had previously attacked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) for her association with an American organization, but seeing the tsunami of hate that Dershowitz is now spewing at the House Representative because she did not attend the memorial of an Israeli, tells you that Dershowitz and those like him always felt they belong with Israel and World Jewry; never with America. These people do not have dual loyalty, they have singular loyalty to someone other than America. And that makes them Fifth Column residents who live in America but work for Israel and World Jewry.

 

Look how Alan Dershowitz begins his article: “AOC has crossed the line from radicalism to anti-Americanism and anti-decency. She now operates through an organization named after French revolutionaries who descended into barbarity and mass murder. Indeed, the word terrorism arises from the 'reign of terror' of which they were an important part”.

 

This is pure filth, and Alan Dershowitz keeps spewing it like a sewer pipe that discharges waste non-stop. He does it throughout the article till he comes near the end of it where he says what follows––here presented in a condensed form:

 

“She [AOC] has rebuffed all efforts to build bridges to the pro-Israel community. Although she has been vague about her position with regard to Israel, it now seems evidently clear that she does not recognize Israel's right to live as a nation state of [only] Jewish people. AOC is no longer a friend of Judaism. She is an enemy that must be confronted at every turn”.

 

This shows that Alan Dershowitz has been a lifelong enabler of the terrorist entity of Israel, and he will not change. As a Fifth Columnist, he is more lethal to America than agents who are put in the field by the country's enemies or rivals who work to benefit their countries by hurting America.

 

What makes Dershowitz more lethal than any of those, is that he is an insider with hands close to the levers of power. He is at times so close, he guides the hands of those who were elected to govern, but were trained to delegate their authority to the Jew that asks for it.

 

With friends like Israel and the Jewish leaders, America does not need enemies like Iran and North Korea, or rivals like China and Russia.

 

They got the Finger, now they want the Arm

 What's the difference between having a working definition for an activity on one hand, and writing into law that same definition on the other hand? The difference is that the law ascribes punishment for violating the definition. This would be punishment that ranges anywhere between a slap on the wrist, and the death penalty in the places where capital punishment is still practiced.

 

Let's take two examples to see what exactly we're talking about:

 

First example: You define killing someone as depriving them of their life. Killing being a physical act, it is easy to ascribe a penalty to it. In fact, because there are several categories of killing, such as premeditated, manslaughter, involuntary and so on, you can ascribe a specific punishment for each category.

 

Second example: You try to define not a physical act such as killing, beating, stealing and so on, but define the expression of a thought that is not an incitement to hurt a person or an identifiable group (which is prosecutable under current laws,) but an expression that describes your assessment of that person's character or that group's cultural habits which you find objectionable.

 

To begin with, how do you classify such assessment into categories so that you may ascribe an appropriate level of punishment for each category?

 

It is that, a thought you express about someone or a group, can range from a simple insult such as calling them “idiot,” to a serious accusation such as, “I saw this man shoot his wife dead.” The thing is that there are current laws which cover this kind of cases and there is no need for more laws. In addition, because calling someone an expletive does not hurt unless it is repeated over and over in a public setting, people do not seek legal remedy when so victimized. But to falsely accuse someone of a crime, is viewed as a serious offense that is usually prosecuted.

 

Because there is a wide gulf between the expletive you'll ignore, and the false accusation you'll want to prosecute, we must ask: What could be between those two extremes?

 

When you ponder on that question in search of an answer, you'll find that as individuals and as a group, most Jews sit on both sides of the fence. In fact, they repeatedly call someone they do not like, an anti-Semite, which has proven to destroy careers, even the lives of innocent people. Simultaneous to that, the Jews whine no end about innocuous expletives used by others to describe the character of a Jew or the cultural habits of Jews as a group.

 

The Jews have now intensified their attacks on others, doing it publicly and repeatedly by calling those they do not like anti-Semites. As well, they have intensified their whining about the rise of what they insist is antisemitism among the general public. They are doing it not just in one country or one continent, but throughout the world. And they have the gall to say that this is proof there is something wrong with humanity which, in their screwed-up way of thinking, means they are perfect.

 

As per habit, the Jews ran to a higher authority, hand pressed against their aching bellies, and called for the enactment of legislation that would give them relief from those who dare tell them that when they accuse all of humanity of being at fault, they look worse than the emperor with no clothes, they look like naked clowns.

 

One of those is Rhoda Smolow who is president of the women's Zionist Organization of America. She wrote an article in which she tells the American Congress, “Time for America to write the IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of anti-Semitism into law,” which happens to be the title of her article, published on October 7, 2020 in Jewish News Syndicate.

 

The article is the usual pile of garbage that's put together by the Jews to impress the mentally retarded of the Congress, coaxing them to ask no questions and do as told. In fact, the article is not worth parsing, but you need to read it in its entirety anyway, if only to satisfy yourself of the reality that nowhere in this piece of work, does the author point to an offense alluded to in the IHRA that's not now covered by existing laws.

 

Regardless of that silly definition, how could the Jews justify going after someone that tells them the following: You are asking too much as usual, and the general public is getting mad at you. Rather than let it get some steam off, you're forcing the public to bottle up the anger. And it's about to explode with rage.

 

In fact, the Jews know this cycle too well because it has been their history for thousands of years. So, why are they repeating it? They are repeating it, not because they believe that the moment America adopts their definition, the public will change their hearts and mind about the Jews, but because they expect to see something more profound than that.

 

You see, my friend, whether Moses lied to them or he was hallucinating when he told them he went up the mountain, met God who promised to make the Jew special, they feel they are owed the fulfillment of that promise. Since they are now convinced that no messiah will come and officially impose the Jews on humanity, they want the governments of the world to substitute for God and impose the Jews on their respective societies.

 

Enacting that definition into law would be one way to get there. And the Jews will work as hard as the dickens to make it happen … Holocaust or no Holocaust.

A most ironic Reversal ushering a new Era

 Thirty-one years ago, in the year 1989, there happened the Tiananmen Square shooting. It must have left scores of dead people who were demonstrating against their government, but no one knows the actual figure because it is the policy of the Chinese government not to give out information it considers internal matters that should concern no one else.

 

And it was fifty years ago––which would be nineteen years before Tiananmen––that the Kent State Massacre happened in America; a tragedy in which four students demonstrating against the Vietnam War, were shot dead by the Ohio National Guard, and a number of other students were wounded.

 

An aggrieved world talked about the two incidents when they happened in the usual tone of sadness while imploring both governments to be more careful how they handle peaceful demonstrations by their citizens.

 

Fast forward to ten months ago or thereabout when the world was hit by the Corona virus which, thanks to the ease of travel in the modern era, spread throughout the planet faster than any pandemic the world had ever experienced previously. There is very little doubt that the virus originated in China, and there lies the nature of the controversy that has erupted.

 

There are those in America who argue that the Chinese habit of considering such things to be internal matters that cannot be divulged to the world, has caused the spread of the pandemic. On the other hand, the Chinese have admitted, though reluctantly, that the virus may have originated with them, but they blame its rapid spread on the foreign governments that did not take it seriously enough to institute the necessary measures that would have slowed its spread.

 

It is not difficult to imagine that this kind of controversy will continue, and will be talked about for decades to come. And so, we leave it to future historians to pass the definitive judgment as to what really happened, and who might have been responsible for the misery that the pandemic has caused to the world. What should concern us at this point is the rise of a process of deterioration, the likes of which was never seen before.

 

You get a sense of how much things have deteriorated when you go over the piece that came under the title: “China's reputation takes a well-deserved global hit,” an editorial in the Washington Examiner that was published on October 9, 2020. Instead of seeing the usual grieving and the friendly advice that's meant to counsel the governments on how to deal with dissent, you get mugged by the editors of the Examiner who began their discussion by celebrating what they see as the “silver lining” to a pandemic they acknowledge has “killed more than a million people and crashed the global economy.” What a horrific mentality!

 

That's what it takes, you say to yourself––a million dead people and a crashed global economy––to bring joy to the hearts of America's elites nowadays. In fact, the editors of the Washington Examiner relish the fact that some of America's closest allies have increased their unfavorable rating of China from the low 60% of the population to the mid 70% of the population. Hallelujah!

 

If anything, to be so happy about “small mercies,” is an indication of how impotent the Americans now feel when they compare themselves to China, the rising power they can no longer influence. Whereas it used to be that to feel good about themselves, the Americans compared what they did well against what China could not do as well, they now rely on China making mistakes that diminish its accomplishments in the eyes of foreigners whose admiration America needs to assume the role of world leadership.

 

When you come down to it, the level of degradation that America has undergone, is forcing it to complain the same way that the Third World countries used to complain about the advanced economies exploiting them and then neglecting them. And when you consider that China was a Third World country not long ago, you cannot miss the irony you see in the reversal that has taken place and has progressed so rapidly. The following is a condensed version of the editors' complaint:

 

“The Chinese have responded with typical arrogance to the results. They declared that they don't want bad relations with Western countries, but will not exchange China's interests for the West’s goodwill which is not valuable to them. China's deteriorating reputation also reflects its broader disdain for the international community and its norms. It demands that foreign businesses sacrifice their secrets in exchange for access to its 1.4 billion-person market; introduces tariffs on foreign goods to retaliate against nations that draw attention to its human rights record; bullies poorer nations by offering investment in return for political deference. Beijing exploited the early shortages during the pandemic to sell billions of dollars-worth of flawed protective equipment. The Chinese also believe they can do no wrong”.

 

Whatever Charles Darwin meant when he said “survival to the fittest,” the accepted interpretation now is that nature grants survival to the adaptable more so than the fit.

 

In fact, Britain has survived and thrived after the Second World War because it adapted to the new situation by handing the baton of world leadership to America, and becoming its ally.

 

Had Britain armed itself and stayed on the path of trying to rule the waves, it would have bankrupted itself and suffered the fate of the Ottoman Empire.

 

Similarly, if America wants to survive and continue to have some influence in world affairs, it must accept and adapt to a situation in which China and a number of other powers will rival it, even surpass it.

He took a Detour to get to the same Place

 A few days ago, I saw the article that Clifford D. May had published about General H. R. McMaster, and I was tempted to respond then but decided not to do it right away.

 

I put off writing a response because in its ultimate aim, the content of May's article came so close to what happened to me, I could not have written a response that would be free of emotions so intense, they would have clouded my judgment. A few days have passed, and I am certain I can now tell it like it happened.

 

First, let me tell you my story before I show you how it relates to the Clifford May article. Having spent thirty-something years of my life trying to find a place for myself in a milieu that touted itself as the pinnacle of freedom, but failing to get my name off the blacklist, I decided to end the quest of searching for a publisher who would give me a break in journalism or the audio-visual arts.

 

I started a small weekly newspaper in a medium-sized town where I lasted a few months before switching to this blog on the internet. As soon as my first editorial went out, two things happened. First, the major newspapers of the big and medium cities surrounding us, came to town and offered deep discount on advertising to soak up the advertising dollars and deprive me of them. Second, those same publications contacted me –– sometimes the callers identifying themselves as to who they represented and sometimes not but –– all of them suggesting that I should apply for a job at the places that turned me down previously, promising that I would be meeting more sympathetic publishers this time around.

 

I pretended not to get the message because I found it disgusting that they believed I would close shop now and take their veiled offer, having spent nearly forty years of my life during which time they acted as if they owned freedom, and I could only beg to be given some of it. No, this was not my idea of freedom. I thought I was born with freedom being as much a part of me as the most intimate of my thoughts. I do not beg for freedom because even the most savage of beasts could not have snatched it from me.

 

And you know what my friend? This is how nations like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran think and feel about an America that is shackled with the chains of Jewish tyranny, doing what it can to deprive them of their freedom while pretending to impose on them the freedom it knows not. And so, in the same way that my subsequent actions have proven that the freedom I was born with, has allowed me to crush the proud buffoons of Jerkland, those nations are well on their way to proving that the freedom which runs in their bloodstreams will eventually crush the inflated buffoons of Zionland and Yankeeland.

 

So then, what could America do that it failed to do so far, in the hope of forging better relations with the four countries as well as the rest of the world? And how does that compare with what Clifford May says H.R. McMaser is proposing?

 

To begin with, America must understand that––intended or not––its current attitude conveys the following message: “Do as I tell you, and this will move you from the penalty box to the probation box where I'll watch you like a hawk and punish you if you break your probation conditions.” America must completely and publicly repudiated and reject this mentality. This done, America should sit with those countries, not to dialogue with them but to listen to the grievances each has against America. After that, America should work on removing the sources of those grievances as much as possible, as soon as possible.

 

This is different from what McMaster is proposing for the simple reason that he brought nothing new to the table. His goal is the same old neocon goal, except that he ended up proposing it by taking a line of reasoning that was not taken before. When you come down to it, McMaster wants America to arm itself and dictate to other nations what the Jews want those nations to do. If they disobey, America must bomb them. Here are a few examples of the new path of logic that McMaster has taken to arrive at the same old neocon-approved conclusions:

 

“It's comforting to believe that our adversaries want security, freedom and prosperity as much as we do; that they prefer compromise and cooperation to confrontation. But rarely is that the case”.

 

“As people have commercial incentive, whether it's in China or in other totalitarian countries, the move to democracy becomes inexorable. But it doesn't”.

 

“Putin's Russia has been pursuing a strategy to subvert the US and other democracies. Pushing a little button labeled 'reset' was never going to change that”.

 

“The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [Iran Nuclear Deal] would produce an evolution in Iranian behavior. That was a pipe dream”.

 

“One administration after another has either ignored or addressed ineffectively the threat posed by the dynastic dictatorship in North Korea”.

 

McMaster's conclusion is that: we tried to be nice to our adversaries, and that turned out to be a mistake because these people are evil to the core and they will never change.

 

You know what, my friend? McMaster must have looked at his Jewish masters in the face, saw what was inexorably obnoxious about them, and attributed what he saw to the good people of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.

 

To quote Jean-Baptist Alphonse Karr: The more things change, the more they stay the same.