Do you want to know how a Jew pulls a rabbit out of a hat?
He names a handkerchief “rabbit,” and pulls it out of his hat. No, the Jews are
not the only ones to regularly pull this kind of a trick; all primitive cultures
do.
It is said that Muslims encountered it in the places where
they converted primitive animists to Islam, and told them it was forbidden to
eat pork. Unwilling to comply, the animists named the pigs something else, and
continued eating them. The idea that's involved here is that if you cannot
change your situation to fit reality, you redefine your situation or redefine
reality itself.
The Jews do that all the time, thus initiate haggling
marathons that never end. This is why they get nothing done for themselves,
thus live on what they sponge from the suckers who listen to them. In fact,
this is the approach that Elliott Abrams is putting to work yet again in the
effort to realize an age-old Jewish dream, this time using America 's
standing in the world, its power and its prestige.
You can see how he does that in the article he wrote under
the title: “The Nation-Building Straw Man,” published on August 25, 2017 in the
Weekly Standard. Once you're done reading the article, you'll have realized
that the focus of Abram's attention is Egypt ; the country that has been
the Jewish obsession since they came to think of themselves as more than a
collection of nomadic tribes.
Abrams devotes one paragraph, situated in the middle of the
article, to discuss the situation in Egypt . What comes before and after
that paragraph is a Jewish style haggle that seeks to dismantle the definition
of nation-building as put forth by those who won the Second World War and
rebuilt the nations they destroyed in the process.
No, says Elliott Abrams to the Americans, you don't know
what you're talking about when you say you rebuilt Germany
and Japan .
He explains that what the Americans did, is “change the domestic order” in
those countries to improve America 's
security. To illustrate his point, he cites the two most famous examples:
“Fascist Japan and Germany
were enemies; democratic Japan
and Germany
[became] allies”.
The theory he propounds – though he did not elaborate it
fully in this article – is that if a country is not a democracy, it sits as a
security threat to America .
To remove that threat and achieve the nirvana of security, America must
mobilize to force regime change in all non-democratic countries. It should
resort to war if necessary, and see nation-building happen by itself in those
countries, together with the establishment of democratic regimes that will be
friendly to America .
This was America 's intent,
he says, when it carpet-bombed Germany
and nuked Japan .
It all worked like a charm, he asserts; so why not repeat the experience?
He wants the readers to see that the above definition of
nation-building is different from the way it is expressed in this sentence:
“The United States no more
invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to 'construct democracy' than we
invaded Germany and Japan in the
1940s for that purpose.” Now, my friend, you know why Jewish haggle is as
useless as Ahmadinejad of Iran would say: the stuff you blow into a
handkerchief. Can Abrams turn that into a rabbit?
His article highlights another useless habit of the Jews;
that of rejecting clarity as we know it and replacing it with the clarity that
the Jews say they understand. Look how Abrams started his article: “Trump's
strategy for Afghanistan
shows deep confusion on the issues of 'nation building' and democracy.” To
illustrate the point, he quotes a passage from a Trump speech: “We are not
nation-building again … We are killing terrorists”.
Now Abrams makes it clear he doesn't like the way that Trump
elaborated on that idea – this elaboration: “From now on, victory will have a
clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating [them], and stopping
terror attacks against America before they emerge. We will no longer use
American military to construct democracies, or rebuild other countries in our
own image. Those days are now over”.
And so, Abrams rebuts the Trump declaration with this:
“First, it should be clear that those days are not just over, they never
existed.” After that, he gave his muddled definition of nation-building as
shown above. And he continues to believe that what he did stands as a paragon
of clarity.
Suppose now that the Elliott Abrams article was given to
military and national security specialists to work on, and come up with
practical plans that can be implemented. What do you think they might come up
with?
First, the specialists will see the article as being a
stream of intellectual mudslide with nothing to fish in it but death and
destruction. They'll point out it is a scheme that will keep American troops
fighting in places like Afghanistan for as long as the eye can see and beyond.
Second, they'll see that fresh troops will have to be
maintained on standby while America
seeks regime change in places like Egypt . If the effort is
unsuccessful, the troops will be committed to do battle, and given instructions
to turn the place into another Afghanistan .
Third, if this happens with a middle power such as Egypt , Iran ,
Turkey , Pakistan or North
Korea , it is America
that will be reduced to a middle power, ceding the top spot to Russia , China or the European Union.