He wants a new round to replay the losing game

Let’s say you just played a game and lost. It could be a game of hockey or soccer or something similar.

 

One of your teammates that’s not happy with the outcome, pushes you to ask the winning team to come back and play a revanchist round. It will be a round in which your team will play the same as it did before, thus prove that it was the right way to play this game. And the team’s strategy will be vindicated.

 

You dismiss the suggestion in your mind, thinking that it is a dumb idea. You don’t even bother asking your teammate what will happen if you lose a second time. But sensing that you’re not taking him seriously, he proposes a change in the way that you will play the game next time. He says that instead of playing to score goals as the team did previously, it should concentrate on playing defensively this time to prevent the other team from scoring. That does not change the strategy that still needs to be vindicated, he assures you, but only puts the emphasis unto a new priority.

 

You still think that the idea is a dumb one, and dismiss it. What makes it even dumber, in your view, is that it has its analogue in the real world where the stakes are life and death situations, and the score is measured by the number of dead people that result from playing the senseless game.

 

You get a clear view of what that is when you read the article which came under the title: “The Afghanistan failure should not deter a strong foreign policy,” written by Larry Farnsworth, and published on September 17, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

Farnsworth began his discussion by admitting the following:

 

“In 2001, the idea of going to Afghanistan to topple a government that harbored the individuals who masterminded 9/11 was popular. Recent polling indicates that the American people oppose the idea of nation-building as a policy goal. We cannot continue nation-building as a foreign policy priority when those countries refuse to stand and fight for themselves”.

 

Larry Farnsworth seems to have put down a marker. It is that America may accept to do nation-building again if the country in question is willing to stand and fight for itself. However, above and beyond all of that, Larry Farnsworth clings to the following set of ideas:

 

“The absence of American leadership is making the region less safe, and a cut-and-run strategy has created mayhem that will empower radical terrorist networks. The Afghanistan example must not inhibit the US from pursuing a robust national defense that stresses opposition to China and Russia while focusing on targeting terrorist havens. This disaster in Afghanistan has forever weakened the perception of America as an effective exporter of democracy and individual freedom”.

 

This means that in Larry Farnsworth’s opinion, America must continue to pursue the same old foreign policy, but without getting involved in nation-building unless the government that America installs in the country it invades, joins America in fighting what amounts to a civil war against the part of the population that refuses to submit. So then, what does that boil down to? It boils down to the following:

 

“Strong rhetorical support for smaller nations facing threats like Taiwan and Ukraine is essential to build the confidence of allies, and also serves as a deterrent to bad actors on the global stage. The Russians have long-term plans to expand into former Soviet Republics like Ukraine. Putin has spent seven years fighting to take land from Ukraine. China is another challenge. Vice President Harris reiterated that the US would keep a strong military presence in the South China Sea. That’s a good start. The most immediate threat to the peace is Taiwan, as China talks about taking control of that island nation”.

 

But why do all of this? What’s America’s ultimate goal? Larry Farnsworth says it is essential for America to do all of that because of the following reason:

 

“America’s resolve is being tested, and only a foreign policy strategy that has America leading will protect our citizens, our allies, and our homeland”.

 

The assumption here is that America is a prey that’s surrounded by predators waiting for the opportunity to pounce on it a devour it. There was a time when America did not believe in this theory, and it was loved by the rest of the world. It was only when America began to treat others as if they were its enemies that they became its enemies.

 

The truth is that nobody is out to hurt America for no reason. Those whom America is eyeing, just want to be left alone. If America comes to its senses and starts to believe it has what it takes to be valued by the rest of the world, it will quickly regain the standing in the eyes of the world it used to enjoy. What America needs to do to get there, is stop listening to those who advise her that the world is full of predators waiting to pounce on her for no reason except that they are evil.

 

In fact, the only evil actors in this unfortunate drama, are those who go behind the back of the people they hate, and slander them by whispering lies in the ears of those who listen to them. This is why those who used to listen should listen no more to the lowlife leeches that live at the expense of others.

Great Essay but missing the Part on Messaging

Jessica T. Mathews wrote a masterful and useful piece on foreign policy. What she overlooked is something that begs to be brought to light: the role that the press now plays in both domestic and foreign policies; a role that will grow as time passes and must no longer be ignored.

 

The essay that Mathews wrote came under the title: “American power after Afghanistan,” and the subtitle: “How to Rightsize the Country’s Global Role,” published on September 17, 2021 in Foreign Affairs. Here is the opening sentence that tells what the article is tackling: “For 30 years, since the end of the Cold War, the United States has searched unsuccessfully for a purpose for its now unrivalled global power”.

 

Jessica Mathews did an in-depth and comprehensive analysis of the contemporary ideas that represent America’s foreign policy. She even touched briefly on how and where foreign policy intersects with domestic policy. And she repudiated the neoconservative (neocon) view of America being the policeman of the world. But how does any of that translate into a workable foreign policy? The answer is dismally. Here is how Mathews put it: “Washington grew more and more reliant on the use of military power and lost confidence in concerted diplomacy as a means of dealing with adversaries”.

 

How did this happen? Simply put, the message of the American ship of state as formulated by those who are elected to be at the helm and navigate the ship through calm and rough waters, lost the ability to convey the correct message to the domestic audience, and more importantly to the captains of the foreign ships of state. This resulted in everybody getting confused about America’s intentions, thus gave up on what Washington thinks and does.

 

The confusion that’s messing the American message has two origins. One kind of confusion is generated by individuals who operate to advance their own personal interests. The other kind of confusion is generated by groups such as the neocons who work to advance their ideological interests. To understand this part, we need to know how things used to be done, and how they are done now.

 

It used to be that if you wanted to serve on the National Security team or a high government position, you wrote a serious academic book about the subject that interests you, hoped to be noticed by the President of the United States, and called to serve. This is how Henry Kissinger and others of his caliber, ascended to posts of importance. Once in government, the work of these people turned out to be professional and useful to America and the world.

 

What exists nowadays, is a revolving door policy that connects two rooms. One room may be called, “media contributor” the other may be called, “staffer at State or the White House.” This is how many applicants, such as John Bolton, got appointed to serve nowadays. He barked incessantly on Fox News till he was noticed, got appointed, messed up and was fired. In short, all you need to do these days to be noticed and called to serve, is go on television or write a column in which you spew the most extreme nonsense you can think of, thus be noticed and get the phone call that makes your day.

 

Because this kind of game-playing unfolds in full view of the public, the confusion that resulted from something like the pandemic, became overwhelming. It is that America has so far suffered the equivalent of 8 Hiroshimas, and the counting of those who die, continues to climb. The confusion began at the start of the pandemic, when Jewish and their ass-kissing Evangelical running dogs, came out and predicted that America and Israel will make the vaccine that will cure their populations in a day or maybe a week.

 

They said this will happen because those two adhere to the liberal democratic system of governance, whereas the others in the world, adhere to the autocratic system. The proof as to which system is superior, they went on to promise, will be shown in the fact that neither America nor Israel will order a lockdown whereas the others will. What was needed for this to come true, said the deceiving Jews and braindead Evangelicals, was for the Congress to give Israel ten million dollars to work on the vaccine.

 

When this did not work well enough to make the American public believe that Israel was the miracle that’s maintaining America on the pedestal of eternal glory, the confusion machine started advertising a made-in-Israel mask that was so super advanced, they said, the whole world was talking about it. They made it sound like if you’re already dead, and you wear the Jewish mask, you come back to life. But that did not work for them either. So, they came up with another new idea.

 

You’ll know what it is because now, no major publication in America (print or electronic) speaks of statistics meant to convince the skeptics they should get vaccinated, without also talking about the made-up Israeli statistics that add to the confusion instead of clarifying things. And the number of dead Americans, many of whom are children, increases everyday in the effort to make the public believe that Israel must remain the most important thing on the minds of Americans even when they are dying. This is criminality that rises to the level of mass murder, and every imbecile that’s a part of this propaganda machine must be institutionalized or tried for murder and dealt with accordingly.

 

The late John Dewey once said that the solution to the ills of democracy is more democracy. This also means that the solution to the ills of free speech is more free speech. What all of this implies, is that suppressing free speech is a poison that can be neutralized by allowing the free speech of those who are silenced. It follows that those who suppress free speech are as guilty as killers. They must be treated as such and prevented from hurting society ever again.

 

As it happens in America nowadays, those who run the propaganda machine that spreads the false news, are the same characters who suppress the free speech of others. They are out there for all to see, and must be identified and shamed into changing their ways or suffer the consequences.

 

It is the only way that America’s message to its citizens and the world will be heard loudly and free of interfering noise.

Foreign Policy Amateurs escalate and risk War

Here is an event in the making that stands at the crossroads with one direction pointing to an outcome that Dwight Eisenhower would approve of, and another outcome that John Bolton would salivate over.

 

A brouhaha has developed “down under” where America got tangled in a Chinese-Australian quarrel that gives it the opportunity to regain the aura it enjoyed at the end of the Second Word War, or sink to the depth of irrelevance where it found itself at the end of the Vietnam and Afghanistan Wars.

 

Here is the story that is developing both on and under the Indo-Pacific waters:

 

Australia has the natural resources that China needs. China has the money that Australia needs. Both have had a good relationship for decades, treating each other as equals. But as it always happens in a long-running relationship, fault lines began to develop between the two nations, especially that China’s economic growth by far outpaced that of Australia, which gave China the clout to begin treating Australia like a junior.

 

Other nations in the Indo-Pacific region — most with a smaller stature than Australia’s — began to feel the same, especially in view of the fact that China began to lay jurisdictional claims on areas of the ocean that were never settled given the history of the region. The areas are rich with under-the-sea resources; and they also constitute strategic shipping lanes that China can use to choke everyone else’s commerce, should the current disputes get nastier with time.

 

There already exists a pact tying America and Australia in a quad that also includes India and Japan. There had been the occasional friction between the quad and China but things suddenly escalated to a high degree when it was announced that America will equip Australia with nuclear submarines to patrol the ocean floor of the disputed areas.

 

What ensued was that the editors of the Chinese publication, Global Times, came up with an editorial that was titled: “AUKUS [Australia, UK and US] to bring nuclear-powered submarine ‘fever’ across globe,” which they published on September 16, 2021. In it, the editors say the following:

 

“From the beginning, nuclear-powered submarines are designed to be strategic striking tools. This will legalize the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines by all countries. As Washington stirs up great power competition, more regions will be involved in rising tensions. Possessing nuclear-powered submarines will become a universal temptation. Washington is losing its mind by trying to rally its allies against China, creating antagonism and destruction beyond its control. There used to be no grudges between China and Australia. However, Australia has turned itself into an adversary of China. If it dares to provoke China, the latter will punish it with no mercy. By being militarily assertive, Canberra will become a target of Beijing's countermeasures. Once the Australian army fights the People's Liberation Army in the Taiwan Straits or the South China Sea, military targets in Australia will become targets of Chinese missiles. The US and its allies are messing up the world. Here comes an interesting question: Who is more capable of withstanding the global chaos? China or them?”

 

Meanwhile, on the same day, Tom Rogan had written and published in the Washington Times, an article under the title: “Five Key Takeaways from the China-focused ‘AUKUS’ deal,” in which he made the following points:

 

“This agreement reflects Australia's new critical threat perception of China. Beijing has waged an aggressive economic pressure campaign against Canberra. In turn, Australia has boosted defense spending and strengthened military ties to the US. This is not the beginning of a new NATO for the Indo-Pacific. The US remains alone in conducting operations that bar China from inventing sovereign waters just because it builds and militarizes islands in international waters. New Zealand Prime Minister says her nation was not invited to join this agreement. China had assumed that it could leverage its economic might to avoid more coordinated international action against it. Instead, Beijing's arrogance and bullying are slowly waking up the democratic world to the need to resist”.

 

Upon reading the Chinese editorial, Tom Rogan responded on the same day with another article that came under the title: “US should warn China: Target the Australian mainland, we’ll target yours,” also published in the Washington Examiner. Here is what he said:

 

“Responding to the new AUKUS security agreement, China says it will target the Australian mainland in the event of war. In turn, should any senior Chinese official make similar comments, the US should respond in a plain manner. More is at stake than how to deal with incendiary rhetoric. Beijing wants US allies to fear that if they decide to support the US, their homelands will come under attack. That is to say, our allies would bear the ultimate cost of American action. Washington should state that any PLA attack on the Australian mainland will result in an American counter-strike against the Chinese mainland. No one wants a Chinese attack on Australia. But the best way to avoid such an attack is to establish a clear, deter-defense guardrail. China must understand that an attack on Australia would be met in kind”.

 

What happened here? Well, if we disregard the incendiary nature of the rhetoric that was used by the journalists on both sides, we find that behind it all, is what Tom Rogan has described as, “the best way to avoid an attack is to establish a clear, deter-defense guardrail”.

 

It is clear, therefore, that the Chinese were establishing a clear, deter-defense guardrail to warn Australia. But Tom Rogan viewed the Chinese warning as, “Beijing wants US allies to fear that if they decide to support the US, their homelands will come under attack.” And so, instead of leaving things at that, he issued a deter-defense guardrail of his own.

 

And this is how escalations happen, be it among journalists where it remains rhetorical, or among politico-military leaders where it can develop into a war. Instead of escalating even further, President Biden can wear the mantle of Dwight Eisenhower’s wisdom, and deescalate by explaining to the Chinese that America is not plotting against them.

 

It is crucial for the President to do so because the clones who are possessed with the warmongering appetite of John Bolton, are doing more than salivate at the prospect of a nuclear war with China. They are stirring the pot behind the scenes.

He asked: Is hate winning in America?

Look at the following lyrics, taken from a 1949 Oscar Hammerstein musical: You've got to be taught to hate and fear. You've got to be taught to be afraid of people whose eyes are oddly made and people whose skin is a different shade.

 

Believe it or not, it is Cal Thomas of the Washington Times who reminded his readers of what the Jews have been doing as far back as 7 decades ago: inciting Americans to hate Americans. Cal Thomas wrote an article under the questioning title: “Is hate winning in America?” and had it published on September 15, 2021 in The Washington Times. It is an article in which the author reminds people of the role that the Jews played in the deterioration of America.

 

An Evangelical neocon as philosemitic as they come, Cal Thomas had always been a lover of everything that Jews have loved, and a hater of everything that Jews have hated. He would have given his life to hide the fact that Jews have contributed to the crumbling of America the way it is seen to crumble today, and can no longer be denied even by a diehard fanatic.

 

It is said that a neoconservative is a liberal that was mugged by reality. The question now is this: Has Cal Thomas been mugged by the reality that he was conned into believing he was mugged the first time. Was he conned into devoting decades of his life contributing to the effort that’s now causing America to crumble? Did he “educate” the children of yesteryear who grew up to hate those whose skin is tanned naturally without going under the sun? Did he educate them to hate those who do not squint or strain their eyes to see the America that Cal Thomas was dismantling?

 

We might find answers to these questions by delving deep into Cal Thomas’s article. Here is a passage that says something by what it reveals, and says more by what it does not:

 

“The latest example happened at a High School. Students had planned a tribute to victims of the 9/11 attacks on America. They intended to wear red, white, and blue to a football game. When a staffer complained, saying the tribute could be seen as ‘racially insensitive,’ the tribute was canceled. Did I miss something? Didn’t people of color perish on 9/11? Weren’t there first responders from different racial and ethnic backgrounds among the dead? Didn’t some of them die trying to save others? How could honoring them by wearing the colors of the American flag be racially insensitive?”

 

Cal Thomas took pain to point out that the opposition to having a tribute to the victims of the attacks came from “people of color” or from those who speak on their behalf. And so, he made two observations. First, he reminded the readers that people of color perished in that attack. Second, he reminded the readers that first responders of different racial backgrounds were there rescuing others, and some died doing it.

 

What’s commendable about that passage, is that Cal Thomas told it like it was. He did so by naming the various actors that played a role in the aftermath of the tragedy. He called them, “people of color” and “first responders from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.” What is lamentable about that passage, on the other hand, and in fact about the entire article, is the omission of the reality that Oscar Hammerstein was a German Jew expressing the hatred that the Jews had developed for all of humanity as a result of being persecuted for centuries, and almost annihilated in the Holocaust that ended only four years before Hammerstein wrote those lyrics. Cal Thomas identified one group of people, and failed to identify the other … because they happen to be Jews. He is still scared telling it like it is.

 

Had Cal Thomas been honest about what the Jews started doing to America decades ago despite the fact that Americans of skin color rescued them during the Holocaust years, he would have seen a straight line going from the Jewish hatred for humanity as they expressed it then and still do now, to the sea of hate in which the country is sinking today without the promise of an end in sight.

 

Being honest with himself would have constituted the awaited promise that America has the potential to be rescued. Telling it like it was then, and like it is now about the destructive role that the Jews have been playing in America, is the antidote that can neutralize the poison which the Jews have been injecting into the socio-political body of the American state.

 

Instead of doing that, Cal Thomas first remarked that having reached the limits of insanity, Americans are going further still into bonkers territory. And this, apparently, is what has caused Victor David Hanson to ask: Does America still work?

 

And so, instead of offering solutions to make America work again, Cal Thomas went on to describe more of what ails America. He began this segment by quoting Hanson and agreeing with him that America, which used to be thought of as the great experiment in human coming together, has been reduced to this: “Americans engaged in a great woke experiment of cannibalizing themselves”.

 

And so, Cal Thomas urged Americans to learn to love America without telling them about the rabbis who started this whole thing by (1) “educating” America about Jewish sensitivities, which resulted in everyone having to shut up, (2) giving every Evangelical weirdo and his wife a television show from where they preached that the Jew was the modern Jesus every cannibalistic moron must worship, (3) resulting in feeble minded Evangelicals flying American youngsters to Israel where they donated blood, and (4) resulting in feeble minded legislators flying their colleagues to Israel where they bathed in the nude and learned how to kiss Jewish asses before returning to America and selling out the country.

 

With this, Cal Thomas continues to con himself into believing that America will be healed. Do you share his view?

Undue worry about defeat leads to self-defeat

 There is an English proverb that says: “once bitten, twice shy.” In a nation that has gone through a bad experience, all kinds of people react in all kinds of ways to the experience.

 

One group of people will be so fearful that what happened will happen again, it will try to talk itself and others into believing that the nation was hit severely but will recover, and will get back to being as strong as before—even if no one else believes that the nation was hurt as badly as the fearful group does.

 

This is the feeling you get when reading the article that came under the title: “Twenty Years After 9/11, the West Is Far from Defeated,” written by Michael Kimmage and Thibault Muzergues, and was published on September 11, 2021 in The National Interest. Here is a sentence that appears in the article, and that’s also used as subtitle for it:

 

“Interestingly, adversaries in Beijing, Moscow, and in the mountains of Afghanistan recognize in the West a worthy enemy, a source of fear not because of its alleged fragility but because of its many strengths. Those adversaries know that the West is still relevant. Does the West itself know this?”

 

Whatever Kimmage and Muzergues mean by West, which is a billion-people strong, each group having their own views and beliefs, Kimmage and Muzergues are the ones who seem to question if the West is still relevant. You get that feeling when you go over some passages in their article. Here is a condensed montage of that:

 

“The Afghanistan debacle has been widely interpreted as a setback for the once-mighty Occident. The expenditure of blood and treasure, the claims about institutions that ended up being castles made of sand, and fatigue on the home front did the rest. The images of the past few weeks will complicate the West’s capacity to exert influence in the world. Western self-esteem has taken a hit and so has Western solidarity. Europeans made clear they resented the way the US left Afghanistan without recognizing the sacrifices Europeans shared with Americans. These transatlantic dissonances have reinforced an impression of Western vanity, futility, and weakness. The estrangement among allies does not help matters. The Western solidarity that flowed from September 11 has dissipated. Mutual irritations are regularly expressed on both sides, adding to the structural problems with the transatlantic relationship”.

 

This is the description of someone that has internalized these beliefs. Regardless of what Kimmage and Muzergues go on to say — which is that despite these observations, they still believe that the influence of the West in the world is a potent force and so will remain — their words betray them. What follows is their attempt at making their point, shown here in condensed form. See for yourself if they are convincing:

 

“This is one side of the coin. Arguments about chronic Western decline are short-sighted and partial. Taliban victory is spectacular but not a sign of terminal decline. Without understating the humiliation, it bears emphasis that singular events can be over-interpreted. Despite the optics, the West remains strong. What continues to make the West healthy and formidable should be kept in view”.

 

Kimmage and Muzergues did not believe this was going to convince the readers, and so they decided to give more details. Here is what they said:

 

“The first of the West’s strengths is the awesome defensive power of its military NATO alliance. In the war on terror, Western powers have adapted to the changing tactics of jihadists in attacking European or American targets. This has not impeded all attacks but none reached the scale and intensity of 9/11. In a confrontation, this is not a sign of weakness. As foreign and security policy shifts from terrorism to classical state-to-state power politics, the Western alliance remains a dynamic, near impregnable force. Russia has never dared to confront NATO militarily, demonstrating the military resilience of the alliance and its continued relevance. Thanks to its naval capacities, the West can project power around the oceans. This includes European powers like France and the UK, who guarantee continued security and freedom of navigation in the Pacific and the South China Sea, along with their American allies. The West is also present in the Pacific with Australia and New Zealand, two pillars of the West”.

 

Are you convinced that the West has what it takes to remain influential throughout the globe? Most of humanity would not be, for the simple reason that what Michael Kimmage and Thibault Muzergues are basing their argument on, is a worldview that is not shared by the human race.

 

It is that Winston Churchill of Britain conned the Americans into believing that if they don’t make life miserable for the Soviets, the latter will take over the world. So, the Americans triggered the Cold War during which time they circled the Soviet Union with military assets on land, air and sea, causing it to develop weapons that rival those of the West. This, in turn, caused a chain reaction that saw China and then India and then Pakistan develop their own arsenals of nuclear weapons.

 

When the British got tired suckling the American blood, the Jews took over the game and started by convincing the Americans that the world is a dangerous place; one that’s full of people who hate freedom, thus wish to destroy America that loves freedom. But worry not, said the Jews because Israel is here and will protect America, if only America would bomb to the Stone Age every Arab and Muslim country that’s advanced enough to defend itself using more than kites and weather balloons — like do the Gazans whom Israel cannot even subdue.

 

These being the notions that motivate the Americans, they lost touch with reality. They are losing their former allies, most of whom have moved on to work on building a world where cooperation reigns and confrontation is kept to a minimum.

 

Unfortunately, the Brits are back again, having joined the Australians in trying to convince America that China must be treated the way that America treated the Soviet Union, at the risk of triggering a new Cold War that will see America sink further down the tube of self-defeat.

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t

If someone asks: What is the best way to live? Is it the natural way or the artificial way? The answer ought to be: With regard to what? Here are two example that illustrate the dilemma:

 

First, there is no doubt that if you and your family of 10 people live on an island of 100 acres, the best way to spend your days, is to gather the edible flora that the land produces naturally, and hunt the edible free-range fauna that multiplies by its own. Having enough to feed everyone, it would be foolish to change the natural order by creating a farming community that will not add a thing to the joy of living.

 

By contrast, there is no doubt that if 1000 people live on the same island of 100 acres, necessity will compel you to cultivate the land artificially so as to produce enough fruits and vegetables to feed all these people. And because this may not be enough to appease their hunger, you’ll be compelled to artificially breed and raise the animals that will add to the island’s caloric intake.

 

 These were relatively easy cases to resolve because the choices existed at the start, and the proper one could be made without fearing that negative consequences may result.

 

But what can happen at times, is that the dilemma you need to resolve, will be the outcome of artificial policies that were adopted earlier, and have led to consequences that can no longer be tolerated. The choice that must be made, therefore, comes down to living with the terrible consequences, or putting an end to the policies that have led to them, only to realize that ending those policies will come at a cost. What you have, therefore, is a case of “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t”.

 

So then, how do you go about making a choice you can live with in a complex case, knowing that it might turn out to be the wrong choice? The answer is that you want your decision to be one that you can live with regardless of the outcome. And this says that the decision must be free of artificial considerations.

 

America was facing one such case, and made a decision that pleased some people and displeased others. What happened was that 20 years ago America was attacked by a bunch of imaginative kids, having trained to play wargames in Afghanistan and having learned to fly jumbo jets in America. They planned a multi-pronged suicide mission in which they used the jets as missiles to attack high value targets in America. They caused considerable damage and killed scores of people.

 

America had no choice but to attack the kids’ bases in Afghanistan, which was the natural thing to do. But then, on the insistence of the Jews that had by then become masters of America’s decision-making, the latter decided to occupy Afghanistan as part of the artificial plan to impose a Jewish concocted Pax Americana on the Arab and Muslim worlds as a prelude to the Armageddon that will see the messiah come to Earth and hand the Jews the ownership deeds to the planet.

 

Things did not go well for America during 20 years of occupation, anymore than they did for the Soviet Union before that or the British before them or the Macedonians before them. And so, it became obvious that America must withdraw its troops from Afghanistan—but there was a problem: How to do so with honor, and not look like a Saigon debacle that happened 46 years earlier? Also: What will happen to Afghanistan after the withdrawal?

 

Maximillian Hess thought about these matters, and wrote an article in which he expressed his views. The article came under the title: “The Withdrawal from Afghanistan Deserves to be Celebrated,” and the subtitle: “Delaying the reality of the United States’ loss—and the cruel images that accompanied it—appears to have been the only motivating factor for US presence in Afghanistan in recent years.” The article was published on September 12, 2021 in the National Interest.

 

Here, in condensed form, is what Maximillian Hess is saying:

 

“The US withdrawal from Afghanistan deserves to be celebrated. Tragedy accompanied the withdrawal, but that is what happens when one loses a war. When one has been fighting a war that did not deserve to be fought, its loss is nothing to mourn. As President Joe Biden said, ‘Our only vital national interest in Afghanistan remains today what it has always been: preventing a terrorist attack on American homeland.’ The withdrawal decreases the risk of such an attack. Anyone with an appreciation for basic human rights will bemoan the threats to women and religious minorities such as the Hazara. Yet it is impossible to weigh these violations, the lost opportunities, and violence that result, with the thousands of Afghan civilians and soldiers who risk losing their lives without withdrawal. The failure to withdraw over the last decade only made it more likely the Taliban would win. As Biden said following its completion, the withdrawal ‘is not just about Afghanistan. It’s about ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries.’ Recognizing the Taliban’s victory decreases the risk Afghanistan will again become a launching pad for terror against the West. It may be too much to hope it will alleviate Afghanistan’s internal divides and the violence that so often accompanies them, but there too the war had long failed”.

 

Do not mourn the loss of the war, says Maximillian Hess, it was destined to be lost, and that’s a good thing. You should have mourned the early decision to occupy Afghanistan past the revenge operation that exacted a heavy toll on the Taliban and al Qaeda.

The forensic Test that proves the Fallacy

It happens at times that in math or science, a complex theory proves too difficult to follow step by step when trying to determine whether it is sound or it is not.

 

It is possible in some of these cases to do a kind of forensic test on the theory, and this will tell in a few steps if the theory is not sound. It cannot ascertain that the theory is sound, but it can ascertain that it is not if there is something wrong with it. The good news is that a somewhat similar kind of test can be done in the humanities to verify theories that may be too complex to parse or to decipher.

 

For example, if the forensic test, done on a new theory, ends up showing that 2 + 2 = 5, you’ll know immediately that there is something wrong with the theory. You won’t know what the fault is, but you’ll know that the theory is not sound. The same kind of test is often done on the claims which are advanced by hotshot Jewish lawyers of infamy such as Alan Dershowitz and Eugene Kantorovich.

 

These individuals often write long dissertations to explain that Israel is not an act of thievery. But the forensic tests done on their theories show that they cannot explain why a new convert such as Ivanka Trump has the right to kick a Palestinian family out of its home in Palestine at gun point, and take that home for herself. When you do the test and get the negative result, you prove that hotshot Dershowitz and Kantorovich are clowns masquerading as lawyers—and that their theories are nothing but junk.

 

With this in mind, there is a test we can do on a theme that keeps recurring in Jewish punditry. It is that whenever an Arab or Muslim kid does something stupid, the act reflects on the Arab and Muslim communities throughout the world. By contrast, if the President of the United States does something that is deemed questionable, be that a valid observation or not, the act reflects badly only on the President and not the United States of America.

 

We can see an example of that in the article which came under the title: “Is Europe using Afghanistan as an excuse for a new explosion of anti-Americanism?” and the subtitle: “Rather than criticize the Biden administration for the Kabul debacle, Europeans are reverting to their misplaced contempt for the United States.” It was written by Fiamma Nirenstein, and published on September 12, 2021 in the online publication, Jewish News Syndicate.

 

The following is a condensed version of Nirenstein’s long preamble to her theory:

 

“America’s retreat from Kabul is not characteristic of the United States. It is, rather, a careless and cruel move by the administration of President Joe Biden. It is crucial to remember this fact. The distortion of America’s character is a pathological phenomenon in Europe. It’s a chronic and recurring disease that afflicts Western culture. Bottom of FormContempt and hatred for the United States criminalize the liberal-democratic system in general. Europeans fancy their culture as elegant and refined, as compared to America’s superficial and brutal. They view their policies as humanitarian and appeasing, in contrast to America’s imperialist and muscular. Anti-Americanism has historically been associated with anti-Semitism. The US has always been Europe’s spiritual contender. And when the Americans blame themselves, as they did during the Vietnam War—or today, when Black Lives Matter accuse the country of systemic racism—Europeans raise their glasses in a toast”.

 

First, bear in mind that Fiamma Nirenstein is a European parliamentarian. She is saying in her preamble that America is great despite what you see with your own eyes—which you must not believe. She goes on to say that the truth about America is distorted by sick Europeans who adhere to a diseased Western culture. They don’t know what they are doing, she asserts, and goes on to explain that they are criminalizing the liberal-democratic system itself. The Europeans do that, she says, because they fancy themselves as high above the Americans whom they view as superficial and brutal.

 

What’s more is that anti-Americanism has always been associated with anti-Semitism, she complains. And when the Americans blame themselves as they did during the Vietnam War, and do today with the Black Lives Matter movement accusing the country with systemic racism—the Europeans cheer them.

 

And so, here is the essence of Fiamma Nirenstein’s theory: European anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are real, and they happen because the Europeans are sick, and their culture is diseased. By contrast, American racism is not real even if they say so themselves. And when the victims of American racism speak of their ordeal in America, anti-Semitism rises in Europe, and the Jews are made to suffer undue torment.

 

The writer used a few more paragraphs to try convincing the readers that what they see with their own eyes should not reflect badly on America but on President Joe Biden and his administration only. While saying so, she brought out the hot-button issues which are important to Jews and to the extreme right wing of the American political spectrum. They are issues most likely to be irrelevant to everyone else.

 

Here are some examples: She characterized as disastrous, former President Obama’s policies toward Iran. She welcomed the renewed talk in Europe for the creation of a European army. She saw merit in the concept of Atlanticism, which is the coming together of Europe and America to defend against a threat she did not name or describe.

 

To end her article, Fiamma Nirenstein borrowed a page from the Iranian playbook, and told her fellow Europeans who think like her to be patient because Joe Biden will not be in the White House forever.

 

As to the Europeans who do not share her views, she pleaded with them to make the effort at being a little more American in the interim.