In sports, you never play just one game to determine which is the best team. Because there is recognition that a team can experience bad luck the first time around, you have the teams play a second round.
If the team that lost the first round wins the second,
you have them play a third round, and the winner of this one is declared the
ultimate winner because it would have won 2 out of 3 rounds.
In other games, they play up to 7 rounds, and the team
that wins 4 is declared the ultimate winner.
Whether it is a 3-round or a 7-round game, the second
round is usually called the revanchist. When used in sports, that word is
considered anodyne, but that’s not how it began. It happened that during the
war of the late nineteenth century, France lost territory to Germany. Angered
by the loss, a movement started in France whose agenda was to seek “revenge”
and fight to regain the lost territory. When this was done, the word revenge
became “revanche” in French, and was adopted as is in English.
In time, the word has been used by the French in sports.
It is almost never used in English, but when it is, it refers to political or
war-like situations. As such, it has acquired its original meaning of “revenge”
which everyone agrees, is not a sentiment of high morals. Thus, to accuse
someone of revanchism is to accuse them of responding to the lowest of
instincts.
This is what President Vladimir Putin of Russia has been
accused of since the time when he declared that he views the dissolution of the
Soviet Union as the severest catastrophe to happen in the twentieth century, an
event that must be reversed according to him. And now that Putin has attacked
Ukraine in an effort to bring it back into the Russian fold, people have
intensified their accusations of him, sometimes using the word revanchism and
sometimes describing him as a monster.
You’ll encounter one such description in the editorial
that came under the title: “War threatens European theatre once again,” and the
subtitle: “The consequences of weakness.” It was written by the editors of The
Washington Times, and published on February 24, 2022. Here, in condensed form,
is the editors’ description of Vladimir Putin, President of Russia:
“Beyond the reckoning of those who
transgress into war, the demons of resentment and retribution, once released,
are not easily recaptured and restrained. The world beholds the flash of
destruction as Russian President Vladimir Putin has sent his military to
rampage through a sovereign nation, fulfilling his long-held vow to undertake
the reconstitution of the former Soviet Union”.
Perhaps you noticed the word “sovereign” in the above
paragraph. What’s it doing there? Well, the editors of the Washington Times stuck
it in there to respond to a consequential Russian contention. Actually, it is
something that the Russians borrowed from the Judeo-Israelis who invented that
contention to suit their own circumstances. This done, the Jews forced it on
the Americans who made it a rule of theirs.
Here is the full story: To legitimize stealing the
country of Palestine that had been under occupation for some time, the Jews did
what they always do, which was to invent a rule that said it was kosher to
steal a country that’s not sovereign. Palestine being under occupation in early
twentieth century, it was not sovereign, therefore proper for the Jews to
steal. What a convenient rule! said the Russians. Based on that, they declared
Ukraine to be non-sovereign and invaded it. No, no, no, said the editors of the
Washington Times, Ukraine is a sovereign nation that cannot be messed up with.
And that’s why they stuck that word in the above paragraph.
Guess what’s happening to some of us here in Canada as a
result. We are terrified that the Russians or Chinese or East Indians or
Mexicans will use the fact that our head of state is not a Canadian but the
Queen of England, and cite this reality as excuse to declare us non-sovereign. They
will then proceed to occupy our dear Canuckstan based on the Jewish-invented
new rule.
As if this were not enough for one day’s work, the
editors of the Washington Times came up with the following paragraph:
“Remaining to be seen following
Russia’s attack on Ukraine is where and when it will end. As the world
beholds the flash of destruction, the haunting realization reemerges: The
consequence of weakness is war. It did not have to be this way”.
This is the signature that identifies those editors as
being warmongers hiding behind the self-conferred jargon of “hawkish on
defense.” What this says basically is that those editors are of the clan which
advocates the forever wars by pretending that being armed to the teeth will
deter others from causing mischief in the world. Apparently nobody took this
message to the Vietnamese and the Afghanis who defied mighty America. And
nobody took it to the Ukrainians who defied mighty Russia.