A special school should open in the District of Columbia
with affiliates in every State of the Union to teach aspiring American
politicians how to avoid the toxic effect of the organized loafers who call
themselves lobbyists or some such name, and come from the local scenes or the
international ones to give advice in what they say are their areas of
expertise.
The theme of the curriculum to be taught will be a simple
one, and will address questions of the past as well as those of the future. The
intent of the lessons will be to show the students how to develop a kind of
moral mace they will carry in their heads, and will spray in the face of the
loafers who will come pretending they know how history would have developed if
this or that were done in the past. Or they know what will happen in the future
if this or that will not be done now.
The fact is that nobody can tell how things will have
developed because human affairs are different from inanimate matter where the
laws of physics say that for every action there is a known reaction that can be
measured and described with exactness. By contrast, every action in human
affairs causes a multitude of reactions, some overt and some covert, some
instant and some delayed – that will cause secondary reactions numbering in the
millions, each of which will in turn repeat the cycle to infinity. With the
exception of a very few primary reactions, none of the others will be predicted
because human responses are mostly random.
Examples will have to be given and used as case studies to
demonstrate how the organized loafers package their presentations and deliver
them. This will equip the student with a method by which to differentiate
between the genuine experts who come to help, and the fake charlatans who come
to advance a hidden agenda. One of those examples will have to be the article
that Mario Loyola wrote under the title: “Send them Back” and the subtitle:
“Without American troops in Iraq ,
the Middle East will keep falling apart.” It
was published on October 1, 2014 in National Review Online.
The sophistication of this writer is demonstrated by the
fact that he makes an admission at the start of his presentation intending to
win the confidence of the readers. He then rams through his agenda. Here is the
admission: “The 2003 invasion of Iraq traded one set of problems for
another … by toppling Saddam, we created a vacuum.” And here is the agenda: “By
2008, a long-term U.S.
presence in Iraq
had become indispensable to the stability of the whole region.”
In other words, this man is saying: We made a mistake in
2003 whose consequences we did not predict at the time. By the time five years
had passed, it became clear that we needed to have a long term presence in Iraq . Now, six
more years after that, we can predict that if we don't go back to Iraq and stay
there “the region will fall apart, threatening a much wider calamity.” It is
the old: we were wrong then but we are correct now – trust us.
Having made these arguments early on, he continues to
develop his dissertation by reviewing history in such manner as to strengthen
those arguments. The result is that he mutilates history by butchering it in
the Jewish style. That is, to make a point work for him, he goes back in
history to where he can pick instances that do the trick when truncated and
presented out of context. Loyola does that by tracing the history of the region
from the time when Saddam was deposed by a previous President to the time when
the current President decided to intervene in a measured way.
Unhappy with a decision that does not fulfill his agenda –
one that is no longer hidden – he rewrites the history of the period while
basing his approach on the pretense that he knows how history would have
developed in the past, and the prediction of what will happen in the future.
Here is the prediction for the future: “Don't be fooled by
the Arab states' support for current operations … America 's relations with its allies
can only worsen.” And here is the pretense that he knows how history would have
developed: “The war that he [Obama] thought he was ending has started as a
result of his withdrawal.”