Never mind American exceptionalism; what we should be
talking about is American intellectualism. We should be discussing how low it
has sunk from the days when giant thinkers used to dominate the American
debates to the midgets we have today. What we see now are people like Rich
Lowry and Dennis Prager who make you weep at the smallness of their
intellectual capacity, and the shallowness of what is there.
Remember what happened when President Obama said that America was
exceptional in the same way that the Greeks and others think of themselves as
exceptional? Well, let me remind you. People such as Rich Lowry flooded
publications like National Review Online with pieces expressing the opinion
that exceptional means unique, which means that only one can be viewed as
exceptional, and this happens to be America .
How long did that last? It lasted till Vladimir Putin of Russia remarked
that nobody was exceptional. So now you want to know: What happened as a result
of that remark? And the answer is: The tiny brains in America that used to say only America was uniquely exceptional, have lunged
forward and barked something to the effect that there are exceptional nations; Russia
being one of them. This being the case, they found themselves obligated to make
a distinction between American exceptionalism which they say is of the good
variety, and Russian exceptionalism which they say is of the bad variety.
You get a sense of all this when you read two articles
published on September 17, 2013 in National Review Online. The first article
was written by Rich Lowry who happens to be the editor of the publication,
under the title: “The Dangers of Russian Exceptionalism” and the subtitle:
“Putin scorns American exceptionalism because he epitomizes Russia 's
tradition of autocracy.” The second article was written by Dennis Prager under
the title: “Yes, We Are the World's Policeman” and the subtitle: “U.S. troops
around the world are the greatest preserves of liberty and peace in the world.”
Lowry begins his article with a bang that is big, but that
is nowhere near being equal to the Big Bang in terms of the intellectual energy
it is able to dissipate. Look at what follows and marvel not for, it is not
worth marveling over: “Russian exceptionalism is one of the profoundest forces
in world history.” It seems that our esteemed writer is confusing Russian
exceptionalism with the Russian Revolution whose reverberation has had profound
effects on world history. And in being so confused, he demolishes his own
thesis about autocracy being more powerful than the Russian quest for freedom
which, according to him, contrasts with the American Revolution that got rid of
autocracy and replaced it with an exceptional form of government.
Referring to Russian exceptionalism, he writes: “Without it,
not nearly as many people would have been sunk in tyranny for centuries and
immiserated.” He then makes the contrast: “If you want to understand the
essence of American exceptionalism, you can quote Patrick Henry … If you want a
taste of the Russian version, you can do worse than the anecdote about Czar
Nicholas II who was asked by a Western diplomat about regaining public
confidence. The czar wanted to know whether he was supposed to regain the
confidence of the people or the other way around.”
This is the sort of passage that brings to the fore a number
of ideas when you read it. The first thing that happens is that you wonder if
the “Western” diplomat was French. Because if he were, the question to ask will
have to be: How does the remark of the czar compare with Marie Antoinette's:
“Let them eat cake.” And after you get your answer, the next question to ask
would be this: “If Russian exceptionalism immiserated people, was the misery
worse than the slavery which American exceptionalism brought to a race of
people that happens to have a different skin color?
Poor Rich Lowry, you feel for the man who had to quote so
many people trying to convince his readers that American exceptionalism was
truly exceptional. But where did that labor get him in the end? Well, like goes
the old saying: It is the story of the mountain that labored, and gave birth to
a mouse. And here is the Lowry mouse: “As Bennett and Lotus demonstrate …
American exceptionalism [grew] out of organic English roots: the nuclear
family, the common law, representative government, constitutional limits on the
state, and private ownership of land.” Hey, this sounds like Canada ,
Australian and dozens of other countries. Are we all uniquely exceptional? Or
exceptional each in our own way. What do you say, Barack Obama?
But then comes Dennis Prager, the Jew, and says forget all
that. He has other ideas which he spells out in his article. He does not take
exception with Obama's understanding of exceptionalism; he takes exception with
his emphasis “that America
is not the 'world's policeman'” to which even he has noticed “most Americans
agree.” And this means that as a Jew, he has a role for America that is
contrary to the wish of the American people.
How does he try to convince Americans of his view? Well, he
deploys his own bang which is even smaller than the Lowry bang. It is the old
and warn out warning that rejecting the Jewish advice “assures catastrophe both
for the world and for America .”
Really? Yes, he says, and it's “easy to demonstrate.” To do so, he uses the
metaphor of cities not being able to pay for a police force, thus decide to go
without one. Prager describes the chaos that will follow, and the order of
thugs that will take over. This same thing will happen to the world, he says,
if America
ceases to be its policeman. Lest he scare the American people in a
counterproductive way, he backs off a little and concedes that “America never
policed the whole world, nor is it feasible to do so.”
So then what does he want? Well, he does not answer this
question right away because he wants to prepare the reader first. So he starts
by lauding America
before damning everyone else. Here is the laud: “America 's strength and willingness
to use it has been the greatest force in history for liberty and world
stability.” If you've been listening to the Jewish narrative lately, you would
recognize this as the point they have been peddling for a while now. Usually it
sounds something like this: “Must put on the table a credible threat to use
force.”
And this is his damnation of everyone else: “This will be
followed by the violent death of more and more innocent people around the
world, economic disruption and social chaos … the most vile individuals and
groups will dominate within countries and over entire regions.” He concludes
that the world needs a policeman, and asks who might that be. He mentions what
he regards as being the most likely alternatives, including the United Nations
but rejects them all – especially the unmentionable Europeans who “are
preoccupied with being taken care of by the state.”
This leaves the United States as the only nation
capable of policing the world, he says. The trouble is that “Americans are
retreating into isolationism because of what they perceive as wasted American
lives and treasure.” But no, says the Jew, this is a false perception “it is
leaving – not fighting – that will lead to failures.” To convince the reader of
this, he does something that only a Jew would do; he plays the role of prophet and
soothsayer. This being the case, he can tell what would have happened if America had left Japan ,
South Korea and Germany – bad
things, he says. But look at Vietnam ,
he goes on to say, America
did leave and the result has been that the communists imposed a reign of terror
and committed genocide in Cambodia .
Well, this is a Jewish style mutilation of history because
the Vietnamese entered Cambodia
to end the genocide that was being committed by the Cambodian Khmer Rouge. And
having unified their own country – which is what they fought against the French
and then the Americans to do – they forgave the Americans and became good
friends with them. In contrast, Japan
is having trouble with China ,
South Korea is having
trouble with North Korea ,
and Germany is distancing
itself from America .
Thus contrary to what Prager says, the place where the American troops were
forced to evacuate, is where things turned out okay. And where the American
troops have stayed to “preserve liberty and peace” is where trouble has
persisted for decades with no end in sight. As usual, therefore, Prager the Jew
is providing a mutilated and dyslexic view of history.
To end, he does another thing that is Jewish through and
through. He speaks of “we” to sound like saying we, Americans when in fact, he
only means we, the Jews. He also speaks of policing the world having denied
previously that he means policing the whole world – but then comes back to
single out the region he has in mind: the Middle East where Israel is situated.
Here is that revealing passage: “We have no choice but to be the world's
policeman … In the meantime, the American defeat by Russia ,
Syria and Iran means that
the country that has been the greatest force for good is perilously close to
abandoning that role.”
Now you know why the American people are tired not only of
war, but tired of the people who constantly lead them to war, destruction,
ruin, loss of prestige and loss of respect.
Americans are saying enough is enough. The Jews are saying:
You will no longer be exceptional if you cease to burn at both ends like a
candle that is meant to serve Israel
and world Jewry.
And the American people are replying: Screw exceptionalism.