Let's say you run a company whereupon you encounter a severe
problem. You gather your senior staff and ask them to produce ideas for a
solution. They split into two groups, each advocating a different strategy that
leads to a different solution. You call them group A and group B, and choose
the strategy of group A. You begin to implement the strategy, and you stay with
it even when the solution appears to move away from you. Despite the repeated
protestations and warnings leveled by the members of group B, who keep pointing
out how you are endangering the entire enterprise, you refuse to change course
till you hit the ultimate dead end.
When all is said and done, your performance proves to be an
unmitigated disaster that takes your company from the thriving giant that it
was to being an average company – one that most people in the industry believe
will even fall below the status of average. As to your staff in group B, they
are so disheartened by what happened; they don't even confront you with an “I
told you so.” They remain silent and drown themselves in the thought of what
the situation might be looking like by now if you, the boss, had listened to
them.
And then, out of the blue, the members of group A ask that
you urgently convene the senior staff of the company because they have
something important to reveal. You accede to their request, and they present
you with a new strategy to solve the original problem, thus rescue the company
and restore to it the original glory. When you look closely at their new
strategy, you find it to be made of bits and pieces that were taken from what
group B was proposing. The thing is that where these bits and pieces were put
together in a coherent manner by group B, they are now put together in a
haphazard manner that makes no sense. And the people of group A want you to
give them another chance.
Sounds ludicrous, does it not? Well, that's exactly what
Walter Russell Mead is doing with an article he wrote under the title: “A
Strategy to counter Democracy's Global Retreat” and the subtitle: “Produce
inexpensive, good translations of Burke, Locke and other thinkers, and spread
the texts widely.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on February 1,
2014. Having been one of those who embraced the cry: “Zey know nossing about za
damacracy of za Shamir” and the cry “Here come za damacracy of za W und za
Sharansky,” both of which proved to be the unmitigated disaster that America is
currently suffering, Walter Mead says he has a new strategy that will reverse
the damage which he and his likes have caused – acknowledging among other
things that democracy is in retreat instead of advancing.
And so, after mentioning George W Bush with loving nostalgia
– the same W who adopted the disastrous strategy – and after damning President
Obama who said America should step back a notch, and take a deep breath before
proceeding any further with this losing project, Mead cites a Freedom House
report which says that despite spending more than ever on the effort to spread
its brand of democracy in the world, America is losing the battle. The thing
that Mead fails to mention is that Freedom House may have been a house at one
time but has been a private Jewish toilet for a number of decades now.
Without mentioning what he and his likes have said that was
false, and without mentioning what they did that was wrong, he gathers bits and
pieces from what the opponents of their strategy were saying, and assembles
them in a new strategy that looks like the haphazard collage of a puzzle where
the pieces are put together not in a coherent manner but in a random fashion
that says the player who did this should be doing something else in life. Now
... only now does Mead write the following: “The gloomy prospects should not
come as a surprise. Building democracy took generations in much of the world.”
And without once mentioning what America did that was wrong,
he finds fault with all the countries that refused to adopt the
made-to-serve-the-Jews system of so-called democracy which America has been
trying to shove down their throats. But do not despair, says Mead as he is
about to reveal his new strategy. He begins this part of the presentation with
the following: “While breakthroughs can sometimes occur, the construction of
systems in countries around the world is likely to be slower and harder than
many of us thought.”
This is it, believe it or not, this is his new strategy: “We
need to think about promoting deeper social change over longer periods.” Well,
well, well. Let me tell you something as loudly and as clearly as I can, Walter
– speaking of “deeper social change,” try to mess with these societies, and the
thing you will experience most deeply is the middle finger of those people
going right up your rear end.
To show how far removed from reality these characters get
when bitten by the Jewish bug; Mead suggests that English should be shoved down
the throat of those societies. When it is easy to study the situation in the
French Canadian Province of Quebec where the encroachment of English on their
language is categorically rejected; when it is easy to look at France and see
that the entry of English words into the language is vehemently resisted; when
it is easy to look at America where the invasion of the Spanish language is
frightening many people, you wonder what motivates these characters to suggest
that societies whose language may have had a completely different root, should
now learn English. These characters are mental; totally mental.