Saturday, July 8, 2017

Inventing History and arguing a false Theory

The air is full of talk these days about the State Department being run by a skeleton staff with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson showing no sign of being in a hurry to fill the vacant positions.

Pundits that bothered to discuss the phenomenon have expressed dissatisfaction, and urged the Secretary to remedy the situation. Each argued in his or her own way why it is important to do so at once, and what negative ramifications will flow from waiting much longer. One of those pundits is Noah Daponte-Smith who wrote: “The State Department in Crisis,” an article that was published on July 6, 2017 in National Review Online.

Like the others, Daponte-Smith has stressed the urgency of the situation, and reached the same unsettling conclusion as everyone else if something is not done soon. Well, let's all take a deep breath and recognize that it remains to be seen if the Secretary has a plan. He may come up with something creative and prove those pundits wrong. To use a well known saying: the jury is still out on this one.

What is noteworthy about the Smith argument is that it is based on history. For this reason, he does more than reach the same conclusions as the other pundits. What he does, in effect, is that he inadvertently or perhaps deliberately, formulates a theory that mutilates the history he discusses. He does that by truncating the history's most salient parts, thus changes its meaning. Here is what he offers:

“The consequences can be seen in the run-up to the Iraq War. Enamored with theories about the role of America in the world, war hawks embarked on a campaign of misestimation and underanticipation, failing to foresee predictable aftereffects of the invasion. Once the occupation began, the Pentagon ran the show and embarked on such ill-conceived adventures as the de-Baathification process and the disbanding of the Iraqi army”.

What's missing in this version of history is that Smith failed to name the war hawks, opting instead to mention them in general terms. They were, in fact, the Jewish neocons who did not just take advantage of a war that exploded by happenstance; it was the war they spent ten years planning.

When done, they waited for the right moment to execute the war; a moment that came when they succeeded in getting a large contingent of Holocaust psychos appointed to key national security positions. Solidly perched in their vantage point, the psychos directed what is universally considered America's biggest mistake ever.

Now consider this: having ten years to put together an operation of this magnitude, is long enough for the work done to be seen as a conspiracy. Yes, we cannot escape the conclusion that the planning and execution of the Iraq war, was a Jewish conspiracy of the kind that humanity has cited since time immemorial, to justify punishing the Jews with pogroms and a holocaust.

The proof that these people did no regret at the time what they did then, anymore than they regret it now – considering the horror they caused – is that they went on to counsel the de-Baathification of the country, and the disbanding of its army. These were the moves whose implementation contributed mightily to the calamities that resulted first in Iraq and then in Syria.

In making that fateful counsel, the Jews cited the history of what happened at the end of the Second World War when Germany was subjected to a program of De-Nazification, and its military was disbanded. What the Jews neglected to discuss, however, is whether or not there was resemblance between the Nazi era in Germany and the Saddam era in Iraq.

The Jews omitted that crucial part of history because they were motivated by the sole desire of snuffing out a Baath Party whose Arabic name translates into “Rebirth.” It refers to the Party's platform that stipulated the start of an Arab Renaissance, and leading it to the finish line. As it turned out, Arab progress was the red flag that used to provoke the wrath of the Jewish bull.

Do you know why that is, my friend? The Jews always pursued four objectives in the Middle East, and they continue to pursue them even now. The first, second and third objectives are one and the same. It is the desire to use America's power and prestige to sabotage the progress made by any country in the region.

At the first sign that progress is about to take place somewhere in the Arab or Muslim Worlds, the Jews spring into action and mobilize all available means at their disposal to try incinerating what is incubating.

As to the fourth objective; it is to make Israel master of the region when the incineration of everyone else is completed. In the eyes of the Jews, this is the purpose for which God created America.