In sum, one can reasonably argue or suggest that there are six causes or six factors behind the manifestation of psychological and mental disorders such as the “Havana Syndrome” and so forth in Washington:
1. Racism, and the insistence out of Washington on a racial hierarchy in the international system
2. Rothschild-worshipping, stinginess, and the allure of ‘dark money’
3. Cognitive dissonance stemming from the incompatibility of Washington’s meta-narrative with the natural course of world history, with world history amounting to “a social process resulting from the interplay of personalities, accidents, social mores and norms, and natural laws and principles”
4. Delusion stemming from the insistence that a policy of global hegemony is still a viable approach towards the broader world
5. Denial towards the fact that the narrowness of mainstream discourse and mainstream thought does not match up to the broadness of the objective world and objective reality
6. The rise of populist and anti-establishment sentiment in the United States as a result of the aforementioned causes and factors of the prevailing psychological and mental disorders reigning over Washington
And when we consider policy and its underlying goal or objective, we must also consider its accompanying strategy, namely, the “Divide and Conquer” strategy which is now haunting Europe and Ukraine as a result of the ‘balance of power’ principle and was put into practice by Washington over the course of the last two decades by turning one Afghan and Middle Easterner against another based on ethnic, sectarian, tribal, and socioeconomic differences. And the utter glee displayed by Richard Haass and others as a result of the chaos that reigned in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa over the course of a little more than the last couple of decades cannot be forgotten.
And quite frankly, many of us fell prey to the deception and the deceptiveness behind the aforementioned strategy, thus the atonement and expungement of those mistakes which are on full display. In turn, it is absolutely naïve and wrong to remain receptive to mainstream discourse, given its utter lack of credibility and legitimacy.
Moreover, as mentioned on numerous occasions, information shapes perception, and in turn perception shapes reality. Thus, as Mao said, reading too many books is harmful. There is no need to delve into flimsy, whitewashed, and mainstream sources as a result of the aforementioned points. Over time, a researcher or reader has to become judicious, selective, and scrupulous as to what he or she reads.
Thus, as E.H. Carr wrote: “The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one which it is very hard to eradicate.” Carr added: “Study the historian before you study the facts.” As a result, I would go as far as eliminating and limiting the number of sources I used for book writing and previous blog posts if I could go back in time.