But Who Will Save The Savior?

There is the expression: Who will police the police? It may be the latest variation on a question that was asked in antiquity -- perhaps as far back as the days of Plato. The expression intones that no matter how good a system you may construct, there will be weak points in it that will cause its demise. This will happen because a system must have a mechanism at its head to oversee its function. But sooner or later the overseeing mechanism itself will go bad, and nothing will be there to oversee the system, to police it or to fix it. And like goes another old saying, the fish will have started to spoil at the head. And this is what gave rise to the question: who will police the police?

So much for the ideas that have reigned supreme during the span of time between antiquity and today, a situation that was different from our current circumstances because what we have now is a new kettle of fish. It is that the world is getting bigger in terms of the number of people it contains but getting smaller in terms of the reach that people have. They communicate together with a simplicity never fathomed before, and they do what they do at such speeds, it would look like magic to people from another era. This being the reality of our new circumstances, it is now clear that what happens anywhere in the world affects everywhere in it. And this has meant for sometime now that someone must be in charge of policing the world.

This idea became apparent less than a century ago when the French were having their ass kicked in Indochina, and the Americans stepped forward to volunteer policing the world. The motive was to show the Vietnamese and their likes how they ought to behave in a world whose image was being shaped inside the head of some “Western” dreamers. What happened, instead, was that the Americans had their own ass kicked because the Vietnamese could do it, and because the Jewish organizations in America helped the Vietnamese in this regard by kicking the ass of the American military at home.

When it was clear that the Vietnam War had become a quagmire, the Jewish leaders made their next move. They got America involved in a number of adventures, this time in the Middle East because it is where the Jewish leaders wanted America to be so as to protect Israel while it expands at the expense of its neighbors. Since the Jews considered Israel to be the world at the center of the universe, they did not refer to what America was doing as policing the world; they referred to it as saving the world. But after it became clear that America's performance in the Middle East was no different from the poor showing it had in Vietnam, people began to worry about America and so they asked: Who will now save the savior?

You would think that the Jews had learned something from that experience but no, they did not because Jews never learn from real situations; they only learn from the way that their leaders spin reality. And what the leaders were spinning at the time amounted to no less than “doubling down” on the failed policies of the past. They saw the necessity to do this because America had itself seen the necessity to retrench and to redeploy its forces. America started to take a fresh look at the Pacific region but the Jewish leaders wanted it to remain in the Middle East. And so, the Jewish leaders decided to use a new approach to persuade America to stay where it is. They reached into their bag of tricks and pulled from it a tool known as flattery.

This is where Dennis Prager comes into the picture. He wrote a book and wrote a column about the book. The column was published in the National Review Online on April 24, 2012 under the flattering title: “Why America Is Still the Best Hope” and the subtitle “We should acknowledge our country's unique values.” As to the book, it was published the same day, under the title: “Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph.” The Prager column was followed two days later in the same publication by “Law Games”, a column written by Clifford May that has the subtitle: “Progressive activists are corrupting the laws of war and putting free nations at increased risk.” When you read the column, you realize that the author does not really fear that the laws will be corrupted, he fears that they will be applied equally to Israel which, in his eyes and the eyes of many Jews, is a sacrilegious thing to do because they consider themselves and Israel to be a world onto themselves; a world that is above the law of man.

I have not read the book, and what I analyze here is merely the writer's column about his book. He begins by telling what the central premise is all about: “There are three big ideas … competing for humanity's allegiance: Leftism, Islamism, and Americanism.” He goes on to say that the American value system is the best one to make a good society. It is itself made of three ideas which he calls the American Trinity. But before telling you what those ideas are, he does something that would be strange for a normal human being to do but is normal for a Jew to do. What he does is blow to smithereens his entire theory as he tries to score more with his argument than the argument can yield for him.

Look what he says: “The problem is that most Americans cannot identify these values, and therefore cannot fight on their behalf.” He also says this: “I do not fault Americans for not knowing their distinctive values. No one taught them what they are.” How long has it been? you ask, and he responds: “...the problem is not new. Even … the World War II generation had not been … taught these values.” If so, what are the consequences? They are these: “...the alternatives, Leftism and Islamism, have been spreading like the proverbial wildfire...” So much for a theory about unique values that no longer exist being the best hope for mankind.

But how is it that he knows about these values when no one else does? Do you really want to know, my friend? Okay, well then get ready for the answer because it is bound to shock you. Here it comes: “...by chance. One night … I stared at the coins … and there they were: “Liberty,” “In God We Trust,” and “E Pluribus Unum” (“From Many, One”). He calls them the American Trinity. Are you surprised that a Jew has seen hope and salvation in money? How shocking would you say that is?

Before you go on to read the rest of the column, you stop to ponder this explosive question: If no one in America – going as far back as before the generation of World War II – has known about the values that make a society good, how come he believes that America is good? Or does he? He does not answer this question but he assures you that no other country has made a proclamation similar to the American Trinity – at least not on their currency. The French may have their own Trinity (liberté, égalité, fraternité) but it is not on the Euro and was never of the Franc. Thus, Prager leaves you with no choice but to conclude that he does not see America as being good, but sees that it only has the potential to be good because it has the Trinity inscribed on its currency – something that no other country has been smart enough to emulate. And he devotes the rest of the column to discussing each part of the American Trinity separately.

As to liberty, he says there is an inverse relationship between the citizen and the government. The bigger the government, the less free the citizen and vice versa. To which you say: Tell it to the Swiss who have both a big government and a free society. As to the locution: “In God We Trust,” he says there is an inverse relationship between a citizen's fear of God and his fear of the State. He adds that the more the citizen fears one, the less he fears the other. And he explains that because America and Europe have become more secular, they became more powerful. To which you say: Tell it to the Taliban who – when in charge of Afghanistan -- injected the fear of the state in the hearts of an already God fearing population. As to the saying: “E Pluribus Unum,” he says everyone in America is made to feel like a fellow American. To which you say: Tell it to those who engage in profiling in New York because they don't seem to have gotten the message.

He ends the article this way: “Americans cannot export values they do not themselves know or believe in. And this is why I have devoted so many years writing Still The Best Hope.” But you ask again: How can America still be the best hope when no one believes in those values anymore? He does not answer but he goes on to say: “Abraham Lincoln was right when he said that America is the 'last best hope of earth.' It was true in 1862. And it is true today.” But 1862 and 2012 are separated by 150 years, and things have changed a great deal in the meantime. Besides, the Africans were enslaved then while the Catholics, the Asians and the Jews were considered to be less than equal. In fact, the Trinity that Abraham Lincoln was referring to was: “Life,” “Liberty,” and “The Pursuit of Happiness,” not the wacky Jewish concoction peddled by Dennis Prager.

This brings us to the Clifford May column. He wrote it in response to Reed Brody, counsel with Human Rights Watch, who wrote a piece in which he argued against the trial of suspects in military tribunals at Guantanamo rather than in civilian courts in America. What galls Clifford May is that Brody said the U.S. “needs a trial that is accepted around the world as a fair search for the truth.” And so, like Prager before him, Clifford May commits a fatal mistake at the start; one that blows his theory to smithereens. Look what he says: “...questions do not appear to interest Brody [who is] seeking to expand the rights of those waging an … illegal war against liberal democracies.”

May's problem is that he cannot accept what people say when they make sense. In fact, what Brody said was that he wants to see a fair search for the truth. What May says in response is that Brody should quit searching for the truth because the truth is that the suspects are waging an illegal war against liberal democracies – something he knows even before it is proven in a court of law. There goes his entire argument in smoke. And this is not all because he goes on to say that to view the suspects as being less than guilty before the trial is to aggressively seek to expand their rights. And he claims that this is what Brody and over 'progressive' activists are doing. Moreover, ignoring the dilemma at the heart of the debate between Brody and the progressives, he goes on to say that the work of the progressives restricts the rights of the democracies to defend themselves; it even criminalizes them for doing just that.

This last part being close to his heart, he wants to get to it as quickly as possible. But he needs to offer the semblance of a solution to the dilemma, or his argument will look like it is missing something. The problem is that he does not have a complete solution. Thus, he begins to discuss something but he quickly aborts it to go to the subject close to his heart. Here is how he does that: “Let's stipulate that unlawful combatants … deserve due process. That raises the question: What process is due an unlawful combatant?” He lists a number of possibilities and dismisses them all to end with this: “...American military tribunals provide much more fairness and truth-seeking than do civilian courts of any of the authoritarian states that dominate the U.N.'s Human Rights Council and General Assembly.” This diatribe does not resolve the dilemma but you ask: How is that anyway? And he does not respond because to do so would have forced him to discuss the Brody article in detail, something that would kill his theory – which he already did not knowing that he did. And so, he goes on to talk about his favorite subject which is Israel.

He does that by attacking Brody as well as the “lawyers, diplomats, and academics” whom, he says, are engaged in “lawfare” against Israel. He gives credit to Peter Berkowitz for inventing the term lawfare and makes use of the volume that the latter wrote under the title: Israel and the Struggle over the international Laws of War. This gives May confidence believing that he has on his side no less an authority than Berkowitz. And so he basically says: Let's hang the suspects then give them a fair trial, but he puts it like this: “...jihadis recognize no international rules governing their behavior.” What he does not say is how he would deem a suspect to be a jihadi or deem him to have failed to recognize the international rules before the trial. The result of his method is that he condemns people upon seizing them which suggests that he would deal with them summarily the way that the Serbian Generals did things in Bosnia, a method for which they were found guilty of war crimes.

What is next? you ask. And he gives an answer but he does so in his usual fashion. He attacks someone – this time the Human-rights activists -- whose goal, he says, is not to persuade “the barbarians” to reform. And he adds this: “On the contrary, they contort legal reasoning to advantage unlawful combatants over warriors who fight by the rules.” He wants you to believe that Berkowitz agrees with these views, and he mentions two examples that were cited by the man himself. They are the U.N.'s Goldstone report of 2009 which condemned Israel, and the Gaza flotilla incident of 2010 which challenged Israel's right to intercept a Turkish ship that was taking relief supplies to Gaza.

But wait a minute, you say, wait a minute. What have these cases got to do with making a choice between trying suspects in a military tribunal or trying them in a court of law? Nothing really. These are completely separate issues but like a leech, Clifford May climbed on the back of Berkowitz to hitch a free ride and make it look like his notion of “hang them first then give them a fair trial” is something that Berkowitz would agree with. Well, let me tell you something, if I were Berkowitz, I would send Clifford May a stiff note telling him to shove it for what he did, then shape up when it comes to quoting me or just shut up.

Undaunted, May ends his piece by raising the question: “What motivates Brody and other activists to want to take us down this road?”

I can answer this question. The motivation behind the road that Brody is pursuing is something that is needed at this time because it is the only way to save the savior. You see, in addition to coming up with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Americans also came up with the system of checks and balances. Under this system, everyone acts to police everyone else. This way, the fish is given several heads, all of which cannot spoil at the same time. No, it is not a system that is absolutely perfect but it is one that has worked well for a long time now.

Life on Earth is evolving as it should but like always, someone has popped up to make of the Jews the odd man out yet again. In addition to this, the perennial losers now have Israel to bring into the game and expand their reach. And because misery seeks company, they are also trying to drag America into their circle of outcasts.

They have made it so that the savior needs to be saved before anything else.