America needs to see things the way they are

To understand why the Americans consistently fail to understand the people whose cultures they try to turn around, we should keep in mind two realities.

 

First, most of the cultures that America tries to interfere with, have roots that go back thousands of years. They would be difficult to turn around even if they were understood, which is almost never the case.

 

Second, opportunistic charlatans who contribute nothing to society but live the good life at the expense of gullible suckers, are always working to confuse the Americans, whether they have a plan to exploit the situation or not. And they do a good job at confusing the situation, which can at times be an end in itself.

 

This was not the case right after the Second World War when America was triumphant and confident. But then something happened that began to change the existing paradigm. The Brits, headed by Churchill, convinced the Americas that the Soviet Union was working to turn the world into a communist hell. And America turned paranoid.

 

To make sure that the Soviets will fail, the Americans devised a system of global surveillance to detect and identify the individuals who might lead a communist rebellion anywhere in the world — and worked on eliminating him. This policy lasted till it was prohibited by the Church Commission that unveiled details of its horrible consequences, and devised safeguards to restrain the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). But the effect of the policy remained, and took on a different look.

 

America maintained its surveillance of the world but dealt with potential troublemakers differently. Instead of assassinating the people whom the CIA identified as dangerous, they invented a fake story about those people, and got the Congress to pass resolutions authorizing a military action against the country harboring the potential troublemakers, now accused of preparing to hurt America.

 

Later, America’s global surveillance was revamped in accord with the Jews gaining more influence in America’s foreign affairs. Instead of taking at face value what is seen, America was now taking things in accord with the Jewish interpretation of what they see and what they speculate. This is when, the world became a totally confusing place for the Americans to watch and for them to understand and deal with.

 

You’ll realize the extent of that confusion when you go over the article that came under the title: “Iraq Is the Middle East’s New Power Broker,” and the subtitle: “After decades of offering only chaos, Baghdad is trying to become a leading force in the region.” It was written by Steven A. Cook, and published on August 23, 2021 on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations.

 

Steven Cook’s subtle message is that because the Prime Minister of Iraq, Mustafa al-Kadhimi has called on a number of Arab leaders and the European Union to meet in Baghdad and discuss security issues that pertain to the region, he is trying to accomplish something that’s more personal than the greater good he pretends to serve. What Mustafa al-Kadhimi is trying to do, says Steven Cook, is change the image of Iraq from that of instability, violence and corruption to that of a country that has the clout to improve things for itself and the surrounding countries.

 

Iraq’s clout, says Steven Cook, rests on the fact that Mustafa al-Kadhimi used to be the head of Iraq’s intelligence services. This gave him the opportunity to foster solid relationships with many of the neighboring countries. Good for him. But why is Steven Cook relying on the old mentality of fixating his attention on a single individual, and speculating on what will happen in the future by what that individual might do or fail to do? This method of trying to understand how a nation will behave never worked in the past, and is not working today either.

 

In fact, having concentrated the spotlight on Mustafa al-Kadhimi, Steven Cook could no longer sustain the narrative he invented about what’s going on in Iraq, and was forced to mention what has been happening in the Middle East for some time now. To do so, he revealed what has been under discussion among several countries for many years already. He thus showed that the Iraqi Prime Minister was not on a personal ego trip, but was trying to urge his Arab and European counterparts to resume the dialogue they had started long ago, urging them to reach the kind of agreements that will be useful to everyone.

 

Here, in condensed form, is how Steven Cook explained what has been happening:

 

“The first indication of the Iraqi government’s new and more constructive approach to the region actually predates the arrival of Kadhimi. In the spring of 2019, Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq announced their intention to establish a mechanism for economic and geopolitical cooperation. At the time, few noticed and those who did tended to dismiss the effort. Two years and four leadership meetings later, the Iraqis, Egyptians, and Jordanians have agreed to build a pipeline from Basra to Aqaba with plans to extend it to Egypt, link up their electricity grids to reduce Iraq’s dependence on Iran, and provide Egyptian and Jordanian firms the opportunity to participate in Iraq’s reconstruction. Even if these plans are only partially realized, they are likely to accrue to the benefit of Iraqis”. 

 

What this says is that America needs to reject the anachronistic method of looking at the world as if it were made of individuals who rule to implement a personal agenda, and begin to see the reality that most rulers have the greater god at heart, and are doing the best they can to improve the lives of the people they serve.

No more war victories, only war crimes

What’s the difference between the Vichy government that ruled France during the Second World War, and the government that has been ruling South Korea since the Korean War?

 

There is no difference between the two according to the leaders of North Korea. In the same way that the French resistance treated the Vichy government with contempt for collaborating with the German occupation, so do the leaders of North Korea who consider those of South Korea puppets of the American occupiers.

 

And you could see the same sort of contempt expressed both in the verbal and the body languages of the people who used to feel disgust when talking about the governments of South Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, that same contempt is expressed today when the Mainland Chinese talk about the leaders of Taiwan or Japan whom they consider to be puppets of the American occupiers.

 

What these realities demonstrate when all is said and done, is that no matter what America does, and how long it maintains troops in a foreign country, it will never be able to install a government that the opposition or the general public of that country will accept as legitimate. And whatever America does to force its concoction on someone, it can never be victorious. On the contrary, every violent act its soldiers commit, will be considered a war crime even if the soldiers were only protecting themselves.

 

Some people argue that America should be able to station troops in places like Afghanistan and Iraq at perpetuity the way that it does in Japan and Germany, but they don’t explain why this has been impossible to do despite the effort that was exerted in this vein over the years. Are these people missing something? Yes, they are.

 

Here is what these people fail to see. Whereas for a short period of time after the Second World War, America’s troops were considered occupiers in places like Japan and Germany, their status changed to that of invited guests and allies who are “here to help us” defend ourselves against an intimidating enemy. It is the same status America enjoys today, having troops stationed in some Arab Gulf states. The reality is that Japan fears a rising China. And Europe (which includes Germany) fears a restless Russia.

 

With this in mind, there is an article you should read, that will widen your perspective even more. It came under the title: “Afghanistan was another Vietnam,” and the subtitle: “At this moment, it’s not clear America can win any wars.” It was written by Jed Babbin and published on August 29, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

The following is a compilation of the passages in the Jed Babbin article that deal with the nature of the wars that America has been fighting since the end of the Second World War. The passages are here reproduced in condensed form:

 

“President Joe Biden insists there are no parallels between our defeats in Afghanistan and Vietnam. He is wrong. The similarities between the two are numerous and deep. They define the reasons we lost both wars. Both lasted almost twenty years but the similarities go deeper than the wars’ lengths. In both, we failed at nation-building. In both, we supported corrupt regimes that were overwhelmed by enemies propelled by nationalistic or religious ideologies and supported by third-party nations. Limited war means we do not dedicate all our resources to the conflict while the enemy does just that. The concept dominated our thinking in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan”.

 

Babbin says that America failed at nation building both in Vietnam and Afghanistan. But you know what, my friend? This is a condescension more insulting to the people that live in those countries than saying the Europeans discovered the New World of the Americas. The fact is that the natives who live in the Americas had discovered the place and knew of themselves being in it, thousands of years before the Europeans became aware of it. Similarly, the people that live in Vietnam and Afghanistan have been building their nations for thousands of years before the Europeans started coming along since antiquity, and have been dedicating their Satan-given talent to destroying them.

 

Look what else Babbin is saying that shows he and the other pundits, tackling the same subject, have no clue what they are talking about: “In both, we supported corrupt regimes that were overwhelmed by enemies propelled by nationalistic or religious ideologies and supported by third-party nations.” To understand how off the mark this is, recall what was said about the government troops putting their weapons down and surrendering upon seeing the Taliban come at them. What do you think was going on in the minds of the government troops?

 

Each in his own way, was saying to himself, these are my brothers. Unlike me, they did not have to pretend they were loyal to the foreigners who came to remake us in their own image. I lived in a state of humiliation all these years, whereas my brothers did not have to. They are coming now to liberate me, and I’m going to be one of them. This is the luckiest day of my life.

 

Time after time, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, the Americans failed to see this tendency in the people they spent time and treasure to train on how to use the deadliest of America’s weapons, and kill the brothers whose blood they could not bring themselves to shed.

 

That reality escaped the Americans even when those they trained committed the suicidal insider’s job of opening fire on those who trained him, knowing that they too will be killed on the spot.

 

It is clear that without advisors who are human enough to predict human behavior, America could not predict that Kabul would fall to the Taliban as fast as it did.

 

It is also clear that America needs to fumigate its State Department of the know-nothing highly-paid cockroaches now populating it, and replacing them with real human beings.

Read and study this counterfeit eureka moment

 Henry Kopel plunged into the pool of self-delusion he dug for himself and shouted for the whole world to hear his eureka! He believes he discovered why all of humanity is bad, and only the Jews are good.

 

To explain his theory, Kopel began by stating that genocide such as that of the Uyghurs in China and the Rohingya in Myanmar, have at their roots the same cause as that which motivates the terrorism of Hamas, Hezbollah and al Qaeda in the Middle East. The cause, he says, is the political correctness which cancels you without giving you the opportunity to respond to the one-sided arguments leveled against you and against what you stand for.

 

To buttress his argument, Kopel gave these examples:

 

“From Nazi Germany in the 1930s to al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas outposts in the 1990s, the local public discourse is flooded with a tsunami of hate propaganda, while more peaceful counternarratives are brutally suppressed … This explains the deluge of hate propaganda that preceded the Nazi, Serbian, Rwandan, and virtually all other genocides. It also explains why the highest per capita production of terrorists occurs in the region most deeply saturated with ideological hate incitement through its state-controlled schools and media: the Middle East”.

 

Kopel added that his discovery thoroughly refutes the conventional wisdom which goes as follows:

 

“Conventional wisdom blames genocides on ‘ancient hatreds’ and explains terrorism as a response to both poverty and the legacy of Western colonialism. These popular causation theories are profoundly wrong … One significant clue to the causation puzzle is the fact that virtually all campaigns of genocide and terrorism are preceded and accompanied by massive outputs of ‘us-versus-them’ hate propaganda, which targets the eventual victims”.

 

But the truth is that there never was a China hate campaign against the Uyghurs or a Myanmar hate campaign against the Rohingya. Whatever happened in these places happened for reasons that Kopel does not understand and did not explain. In fact, his characterization of what’s happening to the Uyghurs as being a genocide, is demonstrably false. It is that 65 Arab and Muslim countries investigated these accusations and found them to be politically motivated bogus.

 

On the other hand, indications point to the fact that there may have been an anti-Tutsi hate campaign during the Rwandan civil war. Although the campaign was so faint as to be hardly detected, some people argue that it played a major role in the genocide of the Tutsis. And while this may be true of the Rwandan civil war, no indication of a hate campaign surfaced with regard to the Yugoslavian civil war. Yes, a genocide did happen there, but no hate campaign preceded it.

 

As to the Middle East, Henry Kopel lumps together Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. What’s wrong with this, is that al Qaeda was formed, financed and armed by the late American President Ronald Reagan for the specific purpose of terrorizing the Soviets. It was only when Reagan double-crossed the Qaeda leaders after they did the job for him, that they decided to exact revenge by attacking America.

 

As to Hamas and Hezbollah, it was Israel that made them. It formed, financed and armed Hamas for the specific purpose of terrorizing Yasser Arafat’s Fatah organization. But instead of doing that, the leaders of Hamas fought the Jewish settlers and the Israeli army units that were protecting them in the Gaza Strip. Hamas kept fighting till it kicked the Jews out of the Strip.

 

The story of Hezbollah is different. What happened was that Israel invaded Lebanon to finish off the Palestinians in that country. While there, the Israelis convinced the vulnerable Lebanese peasants of the Christian faith that a new Judeo-Christian alliance was forming in America. Its purpose, said the Jews, was to invade the Muslim world, massacre the Muslims who will not convert to Christianity, and make the Arab lands safe for Jews and Christians. With this kind of stories, the Israelis were able to convince the Lebanese Christians that they should form an army and stand with the Jews against their Muslim compatriots. This is what motivated the Lebanese Muslims to respond by forming Hezbollah — which translates into English as the Party of God.

 

Whereas there have been genocidal acts committed against defenseless people in the modern era, you’ll find that they were committed in Asia (Cambodia and Myanmar), in Sub-Saharan Africa (Rwanda) and in Europe (Yugoslavia) but never in an Arab country — with one exception. It was the wholesale massacre of Palestinians and Shia Lebanese by the Jews and their newly recruited Christians. It happened in South Lebanon in a place called Sabra and Shatila.  

 

So then, what does hate propaganda accomplish? This question will be answered in a moment. But first, we must congratulate Henry Kopel for seeing that hate propaganda and the canceling of people without giving them the opportunity to respond to the one-sided arguments leveled against them — are the two sides of the same coin.

 

To see the answer to the above question, all you need to do is look around. You’ll discover that the Jewish hate machine — which is composed of dozens of pundits pontificating at the cutting edge, and hundreds of followers repeating the baloney in the echo chamber — may have silenced and/or canceled people like myself for telling it like it is, but has failed in its main task.

 

That task was to divert what the Jews call antisemitism, sending it in the direction of the Arabs and the Muslims. The ultimate aim was to develop a visceral hatred for the Arabs and the Muslims among the American public, in the same way that societies throughout space and time, have hated the Jews viscerally and without respite.

 

Instead of this happening to the Arabs, however, what the Jewish hate machine succeeded in doing, was to create yet another sea of hate where the Jews are drowning once again.

 

That’s where you’ll find Henry Kopel if you’re looking for him.

A master Plan to take Control of Everything

What do you do if you’re a nobody that has been kicked around throughout the centuries for being a fake and a quack, but you still hunger to be a somebody or at least look like one? What you do is continue being a fake and a quack, but refine the tricks you’ve been using to get there, in the hope that this time, you’ll achieve a better result than anything you’ve accomplished before.

 

One of the most yielding tricks used by such people, consists of developing an acute knack to spot the characters in high places who would be most predisposed to prostitute themselves for a small reward, such as getting a pat on the back. You recruit them, and instruct them on how to use their authority in a way that will play a role at implementing your master plan for taking control of a superpower.

 

Once you’ve done this, and have recruited enough shameless hookers you can call on to carry water for you, you give them specific tasks to accomplish both on the national and international stages. Nationally, you get them to work on driving the wedge between big and small individuals, political parties, all kinds of institutions, organizations, associations, labor unions and what have you.

 

To play the game on the international stage, you get the domestic hookers to work on making the government look like the most moralistic thing ever to grace the planet. At the same time, however, you bribe vulnerable locals in foreign lands to spy for you, and report on any rising discontent. You make a list of those unhappy places, complete with the names of individuals who are ready to rebel against their own governments. When a disturbance takes place in a country, however small it may be, you tell the superpower’s government — now under your control — to support the foreign rebels and their organization. If you’re lucky and the situation gets out of hand, you supply the rebels with money and weapons, and you encourage them to carry on with the fight till they destroy their country.

 

Instructed by the fakes and quacks of Jewish Central, this is what hookers of the congressional whorehouse have been doing in America and on the international stage, especially in the Middle East. The latest project of Jewish Central involves a job in Afghanistan for which they recruited two of their most loyal prostitutes. These are Senator Lindsey Graham and House Representative Mike Waltz.

 

As you can imagine, many people are disgusted by this kind of performance because it employs the time and energy of what’s supposed to be servants of the American people, and have them serve the interests of Israel instead. One of the disgusted people that can do something about it, is Daniel DePetris. He wrote an article under the title: “No to Lindsey Graham’s anti-Taliban resistance idea,” and had it published on August 27, 2021 in The Washington Examiner.

 

The story is that of a people calling themselves Taliban who struggled for twenty years to liberate their country of Afghanistan. They beat the most advanced war machine ever to disgrace this planet by its adventurism, and celebrated their triumph. Unwilling to accept the humiliation that comes with such defeat, the aforesaid lawmaking hookers of America fell back on their Jewish training and devised a plan to take revenge. They publicized their plan, and DePetris described the scene as follows:

 

“Soon the White House will be presented with a challenge: how to deal with the Taliban over the long term. Thus far, the Biden administration has taken a practical approach out of necessity. Some, though, have other ideas. In a joint press release, Rep. Mike Waltz and Sen. Lindsey Graham proposed extensive US support to a group of anti-Taliban factions, referring to itself as the National Resistance Front. The two lawmakers called on Biden to recognize the Front's leadership as the government of Afghanistan”.

 

Daniel DePetris proceeded to explain why the Graham-Waltz plan would be a bad idea. Presented here in a condensed form, here is what he said:

 

“Washington is scrambling to get Americans out of Kabul. Some cooperation with the Taliban is imperative. To date, the Taliban have been tolerant of allowing Americans free passage. All of this would be at risk were Washington to provide the rebels with US backing. A broader point: Supporting the weaker side in a civil war never goes well for the US. Take Syria. To overthrow Bashar Assad's regime, Obama authorized a covert program to arm and train the anti-Assad fighters. Those weapons incentivized Russia and Iran, to increase their military support to Damascus. This, in turn, expanded the civil war and resulted in higher civilian casualties. Some of those weapons were even captured or sold to the very jihadists the US was trying to neutralize”.

 

What this shows in the final analysis is that evil’s paramount desire is to be in control of everything. However, he will not risk anything of his own to achieve that goal. Instead, he’ll rely on being a shape-shifter to approach others, and present himself as anything but what he is. When he gains the confidence of the gullible, he convinces them to do the dirty work for him.

 

Evil has had a master plan since the beginning of time. Its ultimate goal is to take control of everything. But because this cannot be done in one swoop, evil broke it down into smaller components. The one he’s working on at this time, consists of controlling America so tightly that he’ll be able to use the gain to move on and control the world.

 

Trained by evil and now instructed by him, Lindsey Graham and Mike Waltz are helping him do just that.

What to think after suffering a tragic event

It happens to all of us as individuals or a family, as a community or a nation. It happens that we suffer a tragedy and we pull back to mourn in solitude. We think about what happened, on where we stand now, how we may cope with the loss, and how we may carry on in the days ahead.

 

But then what? What after the period of mourning? The answer is that we should take advantage of being emotionally exhausted, and surrender to reason the will to plan and act in the future. It becomes crucial to do so especially if we know that the tragedy was something we could have avoided but we did not.

 

Reflecting on how we conducted ourselves during the period that preceded the tragedy, we realize that despite all the talk about being individualistic to the core, much of our behavior was generated in response to external stimuli that left us with few choices to act differently. And so, the questions to ask are these: What did we neglect over the years that got us to this point in the first place? How did it happen that we found ourselves cornered in a tight spot with unsavory options to choose from?

 

And this is when a French proverb comes to mind. It goes like this: “Dis moi qui tu hantes, je dirai qui tu es,” which translates as: “Tell me who you haunt, I’ll tell who you are.” It has an English equivalent that goes like this: “A man is known by the company he keeps.” Because this discussion deals with international relations, the word “haunt” is used to denote the people who are hired to advise the government, and not those you hang out with socially.

 

In fact, the point of this discussion is to demonstrate that the condition in which America finds itself at this point in time, relates to the kind of people that the government has been hiring to advise it. One of these people has been John R. Bolton who wrote a recent article that came under the title: “The time for equivocating about a nuclear-armed, Taliban-friendly Pakistan is over,” published on August 23, 2021 in The Washington Post.

 

What Bolton’s article demonstrates, is where he starts when he thinks about formulating a policy towards a foreign nation. In this essay, he speaks of “Taliban-friendly Pakistan” in the abstract, but this is how he also thinks when in office carrying on the business of the nation. In fact, the reason why even the unstable man that used to be his boss, could not tolerate his careless behavior and fired him, is that John Bolton publicly telegraphed to North Korea, his desire to treat it the way that America treated Libya’s leaders. Needless to say that in so doing, Bolton sabotaged what progress America had achieved in winning the confidence of the North Korean leaders.

 

The following is a condensed version of what he says he wants to see done to Pakistan and the Taliban:

 

“Prime Minister Imran Khan is essentially just another pretty face. The prospect that Pakistan could slip warheads to terrorist groups would make a new 9/11 more deadly. These dangers provided compelling reasons to sustain the US military presence in Afghanistan. We could have continued to observe what was happening in Pakistan and Iran. The United States must now come down hard on Islamabad if it continues supporting the Taliban. The United States should eliminate its aid to Islamabad; impose anti-terrorist sanctions; and more. If a future terrorist regime in Islamabad appears ready to transfer nuclear capabilities to terrorists, we should take preventive action. Beijing’s long-standing assistance to Islamabad’s nuclear efforts makes China responsible for any misuse. Is President Biden sufficiently resolute to do the necessary? Probably not”.

 

Now imagine John Bolton being a National Security advisor to the President of the United States, and he lets his views, as toxic as they are, be known to the world. What do you think the Pakistani leaders will think and do in response to this kind of juvenile behavior? And what kind of relationship will ensue between Washington and Islamabad as a result?

 

To put these ideas in perspective, we compare Bolton’s performance against that of someone who is levelheaded. He is Daniel R. DePetris who wrote a recent article under the title: “What the Collapse of Afghanistan Means for America’s Future,” and the subtitle: “This past-action theory of credibility has proven to be a bogus, in large part because no two situations or crises are identical—and no two US presidents are identical either.” It was published on August 23, 2021 in The National Interest.

 

The following is how Daniel DePetris begins his discussion:

 

“In the midst of the finger-pointing about who is ultimately responsible for Afghanistan’s collapse, arguments used by critics of the withdrawal are receiving a pass. They generally center on three, wobbly legs: (1) withdrawal will damage Washington’s credibility with allies and adversaries alike; (2) provide China with a golden opportunity to expand its influence in South and Central Asia at the expense of the United States and (3) throw Afghanistan back into the arms of anti-US terrorist groups. There are significant problems with all of them”.

 

And so, DePetris responded as follows to the arguments used by critics of the withdrawal:

 

First, the logic underlying the credibility thesis will force US allies to question Washington’s commitment and reputation. Recent history, however, has demonstrated how empty the credibility argument truly is. Other countries don’t judge the US on past actions. This theory has proven to be bogus because no two situations or crises are identical—and no two US presidents are identical either.

 

Second, for China to follow in Washington's footsteps in Afghanistan and make the same mistakes would be an error in judgment. The Chinese Communist Party isn’t stupid. Yes, Afghanistan possesses as much as $1 trillion in mineral wealth. But other foreign powers, as well as China itself, have sought to extract those resources and have failed time and time again, running up against insecurity and byzantine bureaucracy. China’s interest in Afghanistan right now is: ensuring the country’s disorder doesn’t spread across its borders.

 

Third: Concerns about terrorism emanating from Afghanistan are overblown. For one, the US intelligence community has made remarkable improvements since 9/11 in utilizing the technology to find, track, and neutralize terrorists regardless of where they may set up shop. there is no such thing as a safe haven for them anymore. Could the Taliban and Al Qaeda strengthen their relationship after a US withdrawal? It’s plausible. However, the Taliban have a self-interest in reigning in Al Qaeda and limiting operations against the United States, assuming the group wants to govern Afghanistan for more than a few months.

 

Compare this DePetris performance against that of Bolton, and you’ll know why you’d want to see the State Department haunt Daniel DePetris to advise it rather than John Bolton.

America’s needs are not the same as theirs

The foundation upon which a society is structured, rests on the fair distribution of rights among individuals, and between the individual and the state. That foundation also rests on the fulfillment of the obligations that each has toward the other.

 

We claim our share of what is rightfully ours because we have needs that must be fulfilled. Most of the time, however, the fulfillment of that need, requires the reduction of someone else’s share of what’s rightfully theirs. This is known as having competing rights, which are at times difficult to adjudicate. It is where judges must depend on their wisdom and experience to find an equitable compromise between the litigants. Things are different when it comes to obligations because these are written into law and cannot be challenged unless they appear to violate the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

 

Because nothing is deemed to be more a part of human affairs than the distribution of rights and obligations, it is the place where you’ll find the most elaborate tricks, designed by charlatans, to deceive the adjudicators and the public as to what’s what in a given case.

 

Add to that complication the fact that the public is at times called upon to adjudicate and express as public opinion, the matter of war and peace between nations. Now imagine how monumental the task of tricksters becomes as they try to fool that public into looking at one thing and believing it is seeing something that’s entirely different. And yet, the tricksters do it all the time.

 

Believe it or not, some tricksters are so adept at playing this game, you can swear that it is second nature to them. They are such smooth talkers they make you believe you’re hearing Nana Mouskouri sing Amazing Grace when in reality you’re hearing the sound of a train wreck. One of these dudes is Joe Lieberman who wrote: “There was no need to withdraw from Afghanistan,” an article that was published on August 25, 2021 in The New York Post.

 

Lieberman is a member in two organizations: “United Against Nuclear Iran” and the “Counter Extremism Project.” The first is an elaborate lie, the second a sick joke. The truth is that Iran is not a nuclear power in the military sense, and has no intention to become one. As to the idea of countering extremism, there is nothing more extremist than the establishment of the entity known as Israel, an artificial construct whose settlers are becoming more extreme by the day. But you don’t see Lieberman or his gang preoccupied with that calamity. Instead, they concentrate their attention on Iran and its allies who want nothing more than to be left alone … to live and let live.

 

The truth that can no longer be hidden is that Joe Lieberman and his gang have dedicated their lives to the promotion of Israel’s interests and nothing else. They know that the only way to achieve their multiple goals in that regard, is to subtract from America what they give to Israel. They are in a good position to do just that because they can claim they are Americans promoting America’s interests by promoting those of Israel. This lie has worked for them during several decades, and still works in some quarters such as the Congress of imbeciles, but no longer among a public that sees the Jewish deception for what it is.

 

Despite all of that, Lieberman and his gang are doubling their effort to serve Israel at the expense of America’s interests in terms of lives, treasure and the superpower’s standing in the world. The following is a compilation of excerpts from the Lieberman article. They are presented in a condensed form to show the extent to which gangs like those of Lieberman will go to fool the Congress and the public into believing they do what’s good for America regardless of how this affects Israel:

 

“Many of us called on President Trump not to withdraw from Afghanistan. President Biden has now implemented the withdrawal. Trump’s policy and Biden’s decision were not required by the facts on the ground. If the United States were a parliamentary democracy, it is possible that this Biden government would fall. But we are not. The Biden administration has been in office seven months and has about 3 and 1/2 years to go. There is something that President Biden can do now for our country and himself. There is a need for him to initiate a review of the decision-making process of his White House. There are tough questions to ask, including: Why and how did he make the decisions that he did? Was he well-served by those in his administration who advised him and implemented his decisions?”

 

There is nothing subtle in the Lieberman message to Joe Biden and the American public. The message is that despite his incompetence, Joe Biden might still be in office for the next three and a half years because of a deficiency in the Constitutional system of America. The country has survived such episodes in the Past, Watergate being an example, but the stakes are higher now because they involve the competing interests of Iran and Israel, both of which want to become the hegemon of the region.

 

For this reason, Joe Biden must ignore the Constitution and sign an Executive Order to start an investigation into his own conduct. The intent should be to jettison him out of office, a badly needed outcome given the current condition.

 

It is that Israel needs another operator in the White House, and needs it now. Because fulfilling Israel’s needs is what counts the most when all is said and done, what Israel wants, Israel gets.

Deadly Advice from the Snake Pit of Losers

Because you are a rational human being, you learn from your mistakes and try to avoid them the next time you’re faced with the same set of circumstances.

 

To put it differently, if all you have is a rickety car, and you’re driving on a road that’s full of potholes and broken glass, and if the car breaks down, you call for a tow truck to come and pull it out of there. You have the car repaired, and you resume the journey to your destination using a different road. What you avoid doing is get back on the road that did not serve you well the last time.

 

This sounds so simple and logical, you’d think the story ends here, right? Wrong. The story may sound simple to you but not to the simpletons. It may sound logical to you but not to those driven by illogic. Not only do these people advise that you should take the car to where you started the journey on the old road, and try again, they want you to believe that what happened to your car on that road, is the reason why you should repeat the journey that almost doomed you and your car.

 

That’s crazy, you must be thinking by now. And you’re asking: What kind of a stupid story is this? Well, let me tell you this: it may be a stupid story, but it is not all that unrealistic. Do you want to read someone tell you in his own words, this is what America must do? If that’s a yes, read the article that came under the title: “What Biden must do in Afghanistan,” written by Lee Scott Lingamfelter, and published on August 24, 2021 in The Washington Times. You’ll see the great similarities that exist between the fictional story narrated above, and the reality of what Lingamfelter is advising.

 

To get away with what he’s about to say, Lingamfelter used a well-known old trick. That is, before he began making his point, he stunned his audience as if injecting it with a sedative. He then proceeded to say that he knows something neither President Biden nor the audience knows. It is that he can read the minds of the Taliban and the al-Qaeda operatives.

 

Lee Scott Limgamfelter knew what this will do to the audience. He knew that no one will dare challenge him, and no one will second guess him because, true or false, no one can make the same kind of claim, therefore no one will be audacious enough to make it. He thus paved the way for himself to shoot the crap all he wants without someone pushing back, and so he did. He told the world and President Biden what he wants to see done in Afghanistan. The following is a summary of his wish list:

 

“Mr. Biden’s plan to end this long war was devoid of comprehensive thinking. He has consistently held to his view that his approach to the Afghanistan withdrawal is right. It is wrong and it requires an immediate change of course. Here is what he should do: Declare that the withdrawal is now conditions-based and that all timelines are no longer in force. Order Bagram Air Base be retaken along with other strategic and tactical facilities. Authorize the military to deploy whatever force is needed to stabilize the situation, including airpower. Direct the Pentagon to begin rescue operations for any US citizen stranded in Afghanistan. Demand that the Taliban dismantle its checkpoints in Kabul within 24 hours, before the US compels them to do so with military action. Finally, Mr. Biden should call for an immediate NATO summit to reestablish an allied stabilization force in Afghanistan”.

 

Well, my friend, you don’t need to be a genius to see that what this does, is resume the war that has lasted twenty years already, and has yielded nothing but a four-wheeler that lost its wheels racing against itself on a road plagued with as many potholes as there are holes in a Lingamfelter essay.

 

Still, it cannot be said that the writer was not aware of what he was asking President Joe Biden to do. He knew it, and the proof is that he did what charlatans normally do to confuse the audience as to who is engaged in wishful thinking. In fact, the signs are all here that Lee Lingamfelter has looked in the mirror, has identified all that makes him a “forever warmonger,” and has attributed what he saw that’s wrong with himself, to Joe Biden. Here, in condensed form, is how that went:

 

“Unfortunately, Mr. Biden’s predisposition is to pretend. He will continue to cite a litany of events, to suggest that the situation is well in hand. He has been consistently wrong on foreign policy issues for his entire adult life. His doleful record remains splendidly intact. His advisors must press for a change in thinking. Congress must act to demand a stabilization plan of action. That includes positioning an allied coalition anti-terror force in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. A complete withdrawal in the face of a Taliban takeover was never a wise strategy. Especially now with Mr. Biden’s irresponsible and unjustified hardheadedness”.

 

Looking at this kind of performance makes you wish there were a genie who could blink and make all the mirrors of the world disappear for a year. This would spare us, for that length of time, the performance of all those who look in the mirror and attribute to others the dreadful things they see in themselves.

Fails to see merit, he shoots in the dark

When someone is engaged in a verbal duel in which he finds himself defending the side that has little or no merit, he shoots in every direction as if in the dark, hoping to hit anything at all, thus claim to have scored enough of what allows him to claim victory … and he exits the duel.

 

The trouble is that if he gets away playing this game for a few moments, he cannot get away playing it much longer because he is bound to create the conditions that will snare him and pull him down. This will happen because a good argument is one in which all the parts fit together like a puzzle that’s neither missing something nor containing an excess of pieces with no place for them in the puzzle.

 

Whether we’re faced with a good puzzle that a legitimate argument can settle, or a bad puzzle with random pieces that may or may not fit together; that may or may not belong in the same puzzle — what the debate will do, is expose one or several contradictions that will wrap themselves around the phony debater, and snare him. When this happens, his argument will disintegrate in the way that a cookie crumbles, and he’ll lose the debate fair and square.

 

This is what happened to Jonathan S. Tobin who entered the current debate with an article he wrote under the title: “After Afghanistan, how can anyone trust Biden on an Iran nuke deal?” It was published on August 23, 2021 in the New York Post.

 

Tobin’s position is that President Biden has a flawed judgment but he doesn’t know it. This is why Biden continues to take the wrong decisions that harm America, says Tobin. He goes on to explain that Biden’s ineptitude is shown in his continued attempt to reach a deal with Iran on the nuclear issue. But now that the situation in Afghanistan has shown him to be incompetent beyond any doubt, Biden should reverse course and embrace the judgment that was adopted by his immediate predecessor Donald Trump who nixed the old nuclear deal and imposed a regime of maximum pressure on Iran.

 

But is this the full story, or is it pulling wool over the public’s eyes? The truth is that something weird has been happening in America’s governance during the tenure of the last several presidents. It is that groups have been forming by the spontaneous coming-together of lobbyists and journalists who relentlessly hammer at the decisions taken by the Executive or the Legislature. They employ tricks that often succeed at rousing the public, which forces the government to rescind or modify its decisions.

 

In fact, this happened several times during the tenure of Donald Trump, causing some people to comment that the military had mutinied against its commander in chief when it refused to obey the order to pull the troops out of Syria and Afghanistan. In fact, the latest decision to pull out of Afghanistan was made by Trump who negotiated with the Taliban for the withdrawal to be completed by May 1, 2021. But guess what, my friend. This did not happen because nobody took the commander in chief’s order seriously. And this included the Americans who now have a hard time trying to exit Afghanistan.

 

But Donald Trump was kicked out of the White House and replaced by Commander in Chief Joe Biden who stubbornly insisted that the order be obeyed. However, for practical reasons, he pushed the date for completing the withdrawal to the end of August. What transpired subsequently shows that if Biden had stuck with the decision to pull out the troops by May, it would have been an exercise in bad judgment.

 

Still, Joe Biden may or may not complete the job of total withdrawal by the end of August, but if he falls short, it will be due to the confusion that was generated by the lobbyists and journalists that try to run the country by rousing the masses with flawed ideas mixed with false stories and baseless speculations. All in all, what this says, is that the Biden Team has shown impeccable judgment throughout this episode at a time when flawed judgment has been raining on the team and the public from every direction.

 

Be that as it may, we must not lose sight of the reality that once again, Jonathan Tobin has done what comes naturally to members of the Jewish mob of pundits. He took advantage of a dire situation afflicting the nation to try extracting concessions from the American government. As you can expect, these would be concessions that would benefit the faraway foreign entity calling itself Israel. Here in condensed form, is what Tobin wants the American public to be so peeved about, it will rise up, revolt against Biden and demand that Israel be accommodated even at the expense of the well-being of Americans who are still in Afghanistan trying to get out:

 

“Biden took office determined to reinstate the nuclear deal that President Trump nixed. Since then, the Iranians have done so much cheating, it’s hard to see how a new agreement will keep them from crossing the nuclear threshold. Everything we know about Joe Biden tells us he’s too pigheaded to reverse course on Iran. If he follows his instincts and agrees to a new nuke deal with Iran, the consequences for the Middle East and American security may be far worse”.

 

Do as I say, the Jew has warned, or the national security of America will be threatened. He now expects to see a letter writing campaign that will rain on the legislators who will scurry like scared cockroaches trying to cut a piece of America and send it to feed Israel.

He shows how to create a virtual leverage

Originally, the name “lever” was given to a sturdy stick that was used to move heavy objects. The function of the lever is to transform motion into strength. That is, the lever allows you to move a rock ten times its weight if that’s what you want to do. But the tradeoff is that you’ll move the rock only a tenth the distance.

 

In time, the popular usage of the word evolved to mean having the power to compel or coerce someone into complying with your dictates. In fact, whereas the function of the lever in technology, is based on the transformation of one form of power into another form of power, those principles were borrowed by the humanities to achieve analogous results in virtual domains.

 

The difference between science and the humanities, however, is that in science the exchange gives you back as much as you put into the system, no more and no less. This contrasts with the humanities where psychology can be brought into the mix, and utilized to do more than transform the input into an equal amount of output. What psychology can help you do, is amplify the input into a more massive output. For this reason, you’ll encounter cases where “hustlers” start with a weak hand and a big mouth, and bluff their way to great riches. Intriguing, you say, but how does it work? The short answer is that culture is the secret ingredient here.

 

Here is how and why this happens. A space without culture is a vacuum. When culture comes into it, the vacuum fills with oxygen. The hustlers develop a counterculture that sucks the oxygen produced by others rather than contribute to it like everyone else. This is how the hustlers transform a small spark in the hand, into a giant forest-like inferno. And they reap huge benefits even if the move proves to be calamitous to others.

 

Jonathan S. Tobin says he is Jewish; a dude that pretends to worship in the religion of the ancient Hebrews. He may or may not be trying to do that, but the one thing he cannot do is deceive the public into believing he is a descendant of the ancient Hebrew tribes. To be sure, there are Jews who can make that claim but they are few. In addition, they never left the Middle East where the overwhelming majority of their Semitic Arab cousins live.

 

The fake Jews who spread themselves throughout the world, developed a chameleon sort of culture that temporarily takes on a suitable color to achieve a current objective. When that is achieved, the critter turns into something else. To do this, requires the Jews to suck a great deal of oxygen. It becomes the fuel that enables them to transform a small spark into a forest-like inferno. In turn, this allows them to start the game of hustling with a weak hand, and bluff their way into cleaning the table.

 

Jonathan Tobin has shown how the game is played in real life. He did it by writing an article that came under the title: “Can Biden reverse course and abandon Obama’s policies?” and the subtitle: “After Afghanistan, the administration may double down on Iran appeasement in pursuit of a dubious diplomatic triumph. Seeking to expand the Abraham Accords would be a better idea.” The article was published on August 18, 2021 in Jewish News Syndicate.

 

The subtitle shows exactly what Tobin is trying to achieve. He wants the Biden administration to abandon the policy of pursuing détente with Iran, while at the same time seeking to bring the Arab states and Israel into a coalition that will antagonize Iran. So the question we need to answer is this: What arguments did Tobin use to make his case?

 

The following is a montage in several stages of the passages that, in the aggregate, demonstrate how Jonathan Tobin plays the Jewish game of using a weak hand to bluff his way into achieving the desired result. Lacking a reasonable argument to make his case, he took the psychological approach to make his weak hand yield big dividends:

 

Here is the first stage where Tobin begins by clobbering the President, making him feel small and worthless, thus too numb to push back:

 

“President Biden has tried to shift the responsibility to just about everyone regarding the situation in Afghanistan, which is a disaster. Biden has an opportunity to segue from this calamity to political gold. The problem is that it would require him to pivot away from his current course. After Afghanistan, the world sees the US as a declining power. The man who boasted about his diplomatic expertise now finds his credibility in tatters”.

 

Next, Tobin speaks of desperation and warns of doubling down on a bad deal:

 

“That leaves the administration and the foreign-policy establishment in desperate need of a triumph. The terrible pictures coming out of Afghanistan can’t be ignored. That means that Biden is going to want to do something soon to distract the country from a narrative about his incompetence.Bottom of Form The most likely option involves doubling down on the desire to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal”.

 

Next, Tobin describes the Iranians as being tough bargainers who will best the Biden team:

 

“Rather than accept Biden’s offer, the Iranians made new demands that range from the implausible to the constitutionally impossible. Neither is going to happen, though Iran is counting on Biden being desperate to get a deal, no matter what the price. That would mean a reinstatement of the old pact with various side deals thrown in to make it even more lucrative”.

 

Finally, Tobin warns against this happening, and speculates on how the Arabs and the Israelis will feel about it if it happened. He also speculated that this will cause a flareup at the Lebanon and Gaza borders with Israel. And this is when Tobin proposed the option of strengthening the Abraham Accords to bring more Arab countries with Israel, and have them oppose Iran. Tobin also wants the Arabs to give up on the idea of a two-state solution, that which the Jews have been sabotaging from the start while blaming the Palestinians for their own cowardly acts.

 

This has to be the way, says Tobin, or there will be no peace in the Middle East — he secretly believes — because the Jews will see to it that peace never happens.

 

And they will accomplish their goals playing the weak hand of the supplicant, having used psychology to bluff their way into usurping the power and prestige of the donor.

Weak speculations based on wishful thinking

You could have summoned the spirits of the dozen best thinkers of all time, and asked them to write a piece that will tell what they consider to be wrong with America’s intellectual life these days, and they would have written a book about the subject.

 

You would have gone through the book and marveled at the great ideas and profound insights the thinkers were able to cram into a single book. By pure chance, you would then come across an article in 1,300 words. You read it, and you’re blown away. It is not the description of what’s wrong with America which blows you away, it is that the article and its author come to stand, in your view, as the iconic examples of what’s wrong with America.

 

The title of the article is: “The Forever War Isn’t Over,” which also came with the subtitle: “The Afghan debacle just marks a new, more murderous phase.” It was written by Matthew Continetti, and published on August 21, 2021 in National Review Online. What gives away the article as being a piece of garbage disguised as a jewel, is the following passage … here reproduced in condensed form:

 

 “‘I’m the fourth American president to preside over the war in Afghanistan,’ President Biden said. ‘I will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth president.’ But he did bequeath to his successor a terrible situation in Central Asia. The best-case scenario, according to Biden, would look like this: Afghanistan’s reversion to fascism fades away. The Taliban understands that its continued rule depends on its ability to prevent terrorists from launching attacks from its territory. But the best-case scenario is an illusion. Why? Because the war isn’t over. Afghanistan is just one front in a global conflict that the United States did not initiate and cannot wish away”.

 

What’s rotten in what you see in that passage, is that the writer has picked on President Biden’s assertion to the effect that he will not pass to his successor the war he inherited. It is a rotten approach because Continetti falsely assumes that the President has no control over what he decides to do, regardless as to whether he ends up honoring his promise or breaking it. Look now what Matthew Continetti does with the President’s assertion. He pits it against his own speculation concerning a future over which he has no control, and cannot foresee how it will unfold.

 

It must be said, therefore, that what’s wrong with America’s intellectual life, is that the certainty of those who can act on something, is being buried under tons of trash wishful thinking produced by those who are as impotent as the eunuchs of an earlier era. These were the guardians of the harem who loved to pretend they owned the place, when in reality, they were only guarding it for the exclusive use of the reigning monarch.

 

There is one more thing we need to do. It is to define the term “Forever War” in accordance with the meaning it was meant to convey when first coined. The term was utilized to reject the idea of America engaging in a “War on Terror” that was beginning to look like the hunt for witches to burn at the stake during an earlier era. But that definition has been superseded by as many reinterpretations of it as there have been writers using it to make their point.

 

As to Continetti, he has a novel use for the term. It may be something he worked on deliberately, or it may be the expression of his unconscious wishful thinking. Here it is, expressed in condensed form:

 

“The Cold War did not end when the South Vietnamese government collapsed. Nor will the Forever War cease with Taliban control of Afghanistan. When the jihadists look at the latest developments, they see American retreat as a spur to further action. It’s happened before. North Vietnam’s victory over the South did not make communism less expansionist. On the contrary: Laos fell to the Communists, Cambodia was subjected to the barbarism of the Khmer Rouge, Cuba sent advisers to the Movement for the Liberation of Angola, the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and a pro-Communist insurgency took root in El Salvador”.

 

What’s that about? Well, in his zeal to show that the Domino Theory did unfold as predicted when America’s involvement in the Vietnam War ended, Continetti cited all that happened in the world subsequent to that event, and made it sound like none of it would have happened if only America had doubled its effort, and carried on with a Forever War in Vietnam. He then went on to speculate about what will happen in Afghanistan, the region and the world. He did so instead of describing what is known to have happened to the dominos whose fall he lamented: South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, Angola, Nicaragua, the Soviet Union and El Salvador”.

 

Instead of discussing the normal evolution that these countries lived through subsequent to their “revolutions,” Matthew Continetti relied on two tricks to score some politically motivated points. One trick was based on the falsification of history where he committed a colossal error. The other trick consisted of spouting yet more speculation. Here is what he did:

 

First, “The relentless humiliations that followed America’s defeat in Vietnam ended Jimmy Carter’s presidency. They did not stop until Ronald Reagan shifted the nation’s course.” But the truth is that the Carter Presidency ended because two American helicopters collided and fell in the Iranian desert as they were attempting to rescue the hostages in Tehran. The hostages were eventually released when Ronald Reagan paid the Iranians a ransom that came in the form of Stinger shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles. Carter’s failed attempt was a tragedy, not a humiliation. Reagan’s decision was a humiliation worse than a self-inflicted tragedy.

 

Second, “Just as the Taliban never surrendered after the US intervention, neither will the former partisans of the Northern Alliance acquiesce to the collapse of Kabul. Even a low-grade civil conflict will draw in other powers. America will be forced to pay attention and likely will become involved”.

 

This may happen or it may prove to be idle speculation; time will tell. But whatever happens, it will be a part of Afghanistan’s natural evolution.

Stop the intrusions, smell the scent of honesty

The best way I can translate an Egyptian proverb, which is relevant to this discussion, is as follows: He who gets between the onion and its skin, suffers the full brunt of its biting stench.

 

The proverb is used to warn people who have the nasty habit of making themselves the third party in disputes that involve two others. The latter may be reasonable antagonists that have legitimate but unresolved claims, or they may be unreasonable antagonists trying to score gains where they have no legitimate claim. This, however, does not deter those who poke their noses in the business of others. They poke them either way.

 

Well then, who in this day and age, needs to be reminded of the necessity to heed the wisdom that’s stowed in that proverb? Without a moment’s hesitation, the answer can only be this: The United States of America is the one that needs to be reminded. This should be done in a most forceful manner to impress upon the Americans that they have gone too far already, meddling in the affairs of other nations. Whether by its own desire or by invitation from others to get involved, America must develop the habit of saying no. It should only mind its own business and forever leave everyone else alone.

 

Past experiences have not been kind to America. With the exception of its intervention in the Yugoslavian civil war where it might have done some good, nowhere else during the dozens of other interventions has America done anything considered useful. In fact, everyone of the major interventions, such as Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Somalia, created its own horror stories that serve to denigrate America today, and will forever tarnish its image.

 

Unless America ends the habit of interfering in the affairs of others now, as would the drug addict that’s told to stop cold, all that happened in the past, will prove to be a mere rehearsal for what is yet to come. That’s because what’s in the offing, promises to be a nuclear exchange with China.

 

Two writers have recently discussed this subject, and we should look into what they say. One article came under the title: “Does China want war?” and the subtitle: “Japan joins US in defense of Taiwan,” written by John William Middendorf II, and published in the Washington Times on August 18, 2021. The next day, August 19, 2021, the same Washington Times published an article by David Keene who asked the question: “Will the US risk war with China to defend Taiwan?” It became the title of the article.

 

John Middendorf who used to be Secretary of the Navy, is preoccupied with the maneuvers executed lately by the Chinese navy around Taiwan. Whereas some analysts believe the moves were in response to American warplanes paying a visit to Taiwan, Middendorf goes further than that, and suggests that Japan’s behavior must have played a role too. In fact, the Japanese have stated clearly that they and the Americans may intervene militarily if China attacks Taiwan.

 

That warning-in-disguise started an angry verbal exchange between China and Japan, culminating in a Chinese official warning that China may not be restrained by its policy of not being first to use nuclear weapons. China will respond, said the Chinese official, with an all-out war against Japan, “striking with nuclear bombs and continuing to use them till Japan surrenders unconditionally”.

 

After reminding the readers that US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin promised to help Taiwan and other allies in the Indo-Pacific region to defend themselves against China’s aggression, John Middendorf ended his article by warning that it may be true China does not want war, which is what we all believe, we should nevertheless revisit everything we know about China.

 

As to David Keene, who is an editor at large of the Washington Times, what he did in essence, was to say something which goes like this: the Titanic is sinking, and we’re going down with it. Even if we cannot do anything about it, we must not let it happen. This is paradoxical thinking that you’ll have to see for yourself to believe.

 

Here, let me show you. David Keene began his discussion by warning that China has been threatening for years to regain control of Taiwan by any means necessary. He went on to give a brief history of how the country split into two parts, and mentioned the early failed attempt to reunite it.

 

Thanks to the support of the United States, says Keene, Taiwan was able to live as an independent nation and prosper. But the problem now is that however-much the people of Taiwan relish their freedom, they can no longer count on America’s support at a time when Beijing has become convinced that the United States will not risk war with China to protect the independence of Taiwan.

 

That’s a shame, says David Keene, because if Taiwan goes, the sea lanes and the entire western Pacific region will fall under the control of Beijing. This in turn will force Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and India to kowtow to the Chinese hegemon. Worse, says Keene, Beijing will get its hand on the Taiwanese chip manufacturers who, along with those of South Korea, produce the most advanced chips today, supplies that America relies on for much of the hi-tech military and civilian products it makes.

 

And here is the paradox that exposes David Keene:

 

“Allowing that to happen would prove disastrous to the world economy. As one expert put it, even a failed attempt to take Taiwan by force would do major damage to the world economy. We cannot afford to let that happen any more than we can afford to abandon Taiwan”.

 

David Keene has failed to suggest the obvious solution, which is for America to cultivate normal relations with everyone, to stop provoking others, and most of all, to stop getting between the onion and its skin, thus avoid suffering the full brunt of its biting stench.

 

America desperately needs to learn how to leave everyone alone, and enjoy smelling the sweet scent of being honest with itself.