The more they complain that America
is disengaged, the more they tell why America must remain disengaged. In
fact, America must remain
disengaged precisely because it is full of amateurs who think of themselves as
masters, even when they cannot explain in what way America is disengaged, let alone
draw up a strategy for re-engagement were they able to prove there is a need
for such a thing.
Two articles will illustrate those points. The first was
written by Michael Gerson and published in the Washington Post on December 26,
2013. It has the title: “Can Muslim lands learn to tolerate Christianity?” The
second was written by John Bolton and published in the New York Daily News on
December 27, 2013. It has the title: “As Obama dithers, North
Africa unravels” and the subtitle: “Disengagement is having
dangerous consequences.”
If you go by the subtitle of the Bolton article which
asserts that dangerous consequences follow when America
disengages, you must believe that safe or inconsequential things follow when America
engages. So you look through the article to see where Bolton says America has
disengaged, and where it has engaged. He says it has disengaged from these
places: Sudan , Libya , Somalia ,
Algeria , Mali , Nigeria ,
Syria , Yemen , Tunisia
and Egypt .
Curiously enough, he does not mention Iraq
or Afghanistan where America
engaged, created a hell for itself and for the locals, and was then forced to
disengage and flee, tail between its legs.
Where else did America engage if on a limited
basis? Well, it did so in Sudan ,
Libya , Somalia and Yemen where American made hell
still rages and no end is seen on the horizon. And the end will not be seen
till America
fully disengages from there too, at which time the locals will take the time
they need to lick their wounds, get back on their feet and rebuild their
societies.
But look at Algeria ,
Tunisia and Egypt where the locals made sure at the
beginning of their movement that America will not interfere. The
result has been that these people had it pretty good compared to the way that
things turned out in other places. As for Mali , the onus is now on the French
to bring stability to that country. They were a colonial power that renounced
its earlier incarnation and now seems genuinely interested in doing not what is
good for the French but what is right for everyone. And what is right means,
first and foremost, what is good for the people of Mali . And so, we wish them well and
hope they succeed.
The French did, however, get involved in Libya where
things are not going too well now. And that surely has to do with the fact that
the French called on the Americans to join in. What happened then? Well, the
adventure turned out to be one hell of a fiasco. You know why? Because the engagement
plan was drawn up by World Jewry and presented by a French Jew who calls
himself a philosopher.
The Jews of America took it from there, and guess what they
did? They asked the question: Where is our interest? People thought they meant
to say the American interest, but when these people say “we,” they mean we, the
Jews or we, the Israelis. They never mean we, the Americans or French or Brits
or any other nationality. And so they worked to deliver for themselves what
they saw then, and what they see now as being good for them. And you know what,
my friend? They delivered. Yes, they delivered for themselves because chaos is
what is good for them, and chaos is what you see in Libya at this time. You also see it
in all the places where America ,
under the guidance of American Jews, poked its nose. Let it be known that the
American Midas touch is the injection of Jewish chaos where America goes.
We now look at the Michael Gerson article. Let me be clear
at the start what I believe this is. It is gibberish. It is as if it were
written by some mayor who is high on crack or something. I see a writer who
gathered parts from here and there, and found himself unable to put them
together in any coherent manner. And there is a reason for that; it is a reason
that spoils many articles of this kind. It is that people who begin by saying
America or Canada or Australia are showing the world how to build institutions
that make it possible for pluralism to flourish are (forgive me for being
impolite) full of shit. There is no institution in any of these places that
does what they say is happening. The truth of the matter is that the people who
leave their “old country” to go live in places that take in immigrants are the
ones predisposed to accept pluralism. Nothing changes them, it is what they
are, and what they come with.
To then use that reality and build on it a concept like
this: “Democracy promotion – as embraced by the National Democratic Institute
or the International Republican Institute or Freedom House – is about human
liberty protected by democratic institutions” is to be not only self-serving
but also (forgive me again) full of shit. As to the self-serving part, you can
see it clearly in this passage: “It matters greatly whether America and
other democracies can help pluralism survive and shape the emerging political
order. This is a priority for … strategic reasons. As William Inboden notes,
there is a robust correlation between religious persecution and national
security threats.”
Gerson also makes this point: “Whether the Islamic world can
move toward [a] democratic virtue is now one of the largest geopolitical
questions of the 21st century.” Well, this may be a question in his head but
not in the heads of the people who live in the Arab world whatever their faiths.
These people know that when Jews such as John Bolton will be made to stop
inciting the Americans, and stop ordering them to go kill Muslims, no Muslim
kid will want to take on the Americans and fight them where he finds them. And
no crazy ones among these kids will want to attract attention by harming the
Christians, which they were taught was the surest way to get the American media
to talk about them. Yes, Christians are suffering across the world, but this is
only because America 's
journalists are unable to grow up.
Anyone that has a sense of proportion and propriety can see
that the war on Islam has been institutionalized in America . They can also see that the
war on all religions has been institutionalized in Israel where only Judaism is tolerated.
And they can see that this Jewish tendency applies not only in Israel but also where the Jews are given free
hand to do what they want such as in America , for example. This is why
Jews hire only Jews, and why Jewish writers only quote other Jewish writers.
You do this for two or three generations, and you end up with the Jewish
domination of the institutions that Gerson says are good for democracy. How
much worse can someone's confusion get to be?