Category Archives: Argument

NEW COLUMN: No, Lara Logan, Only Simpletons Think Afghanistan Is Simple

Argument, Asia, Critique, Foreign Policy, Islam, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, War

NEW COLUMN, “No, Lara Logan, Only Simpletons Think Afghanistan Is Simple,” is currently on WND.COM, The Unz Review, Townhall.com, CNSNews and American Greatness.

And excerpt:

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson appears in thrall to Lara Logan’s political observations—to her “philosophical” meditations, too. Alas, Logan is no Roger Scruton.

You might have heard Logan claim, recently and repetitively, that everything in the world is simple. “Everything is simple,” she keeps intoning in her appearances on Fox News.

Applied to the fiasco in Afghanistan, Logan’s Theory of Simple is that, considering that America is omnipotent, whatever occurs under its watch is always and everywhere planned and preventable.

Ridiculous and wrong, yet Tucker, whom we all love to bits, giggles in delight.

“They want you to believe Afghanistan is complicated,” lectured Logan. “Because if you complicate it, it is a tactic in information warfare called ‘ambiguity increasing.’”

“So now we’re talking about all the corruption and this and that,” she further vaporized. “But at its heart, every single thing in the world… always comes down to one or two things …”

Logan likely recently discovered Occam’s Razor and is promiscuously applying this principle to anything and everything, with little evidence or geopolitical and historic understanding in support of her Theory of Simple.

Occam’s Razor posits that, “the simplest explanation is preferable to one that is more complex,” provided “simple” is “based on as much evidence as possible.”

A nifty principle—and certainly not a philosophy—Occam’s Razor was not meant to apply to everything under the sun.

Misapplied by Logan, why? Primarily because Logan’s explanation for America’s defeat in Afghanistan—that the United States threw the game—is hardly the simplest explanation, despite her assertion to the contrary.

The simplest explanation to the US defeat in Afghanistan, based on as much information as is possible to gather, is that, wait for this: America was defeated fair and square. As this columnist had argued, the US was outsmarted and outmaneuvered, in a mission impossible in the first place.

… READ ON. NEW COLUMN, “No, Lara Logan, Only Simpletons Think Afghanistan Is Simple,” is currently on WND.COM, The Unz Review, Townhall.com, CNSNews and American Greatness.

 

Afghanistan And The Sunk-Cost Fallacy

Argument, Democrats, Economy, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, Military, Neoconservatism, Republicans, War

Joe Biden is right in his “Remarks on Afghanistan“: “… if Afghanistan is unable to mount any real resistance to the Taliban now, there is no chance that 1 year — 1 more year, 5 more years, or 20 more years of U.S. military boots on the ground would’ve made any difference.”

Tempting as it may be for right-thinking conservatives and paleolibertarians, in particular, to use the inevitable collapse of the charade in Afghanistan against Biden—honesty demand we avoid it.

TV Republicans, no doubt, will join the shrill CNN females and their houseboys, who love nothing more than to export the nanny state, in bashing Biden for his decisive withdrawal. The president said, “I stand squarely behind my decision. After 20 years, I’ve learned the hard way that there was never a good time to withdraw U.S. forces.”

Falling into the Republican line of partisan, tit-for-tat retorts is wrong. The man made the right choice—as opposed to Barack Obama’s. Afghanistan was a war Obama had adopted.

Beware especially the military men, who will flood Fox New with the sunk-cost fallacy. As I explained in “GOP Should Grow A Brain, Join The Peace Train“:

Military movers and shakers are heavily vested in the sunk-cost fallacy—the irrational notion that more resources must be committed forthwith … so as to ‘redeem’ the original misguided commitment of men, money and materiel to the mission.

“To that end, repeated ad nauseam is the refrain about our ‘brave men and women of the military,’ whose sacrifice for [Afghani] ‘freedoms’ will be squandered unless more such sacrifices are made.

The Skeptic’s Dictionary dispels this illogic: ‘To continue to invest in a hopeless project is irrational. Such behavior may be a pathetic attempt to delay having to face the consequences of one’s poor judgment. The irrationality is a way to save face, to appear to be knowledgeable, when in fact one is acting like an idiot.’

Besides, it’s time the military heed its paymasters, The American People, a majority of whom don’t want to send U.S. soldiers back into Afghanistan.”

 

 

 

 

NEW COLUMN: Justice Thomas’ Solution to Big Tech’s Social And Financial Excommunication

Argument, Economy, Individual Rights, Technology, The State

NEW COLUMN IS “Justice Thomas’ Solution to Big Tech’s Social And Financial Excommunication.

The column is currently on WND.COM, The Unz Review, Townhall.com, The New American and CNSNews.com.

The column is Part 2 of a 3-part series. Read Part 1, “Big Tech’s Financial Terrorism And Social Excommunication.”

An excerpt:

Fox News personality Tucker Carlson has vowed to stay chipper. This is not sufficient a solution from so powerful a persona as Mr. Carlson.

The requisite and fitting noblesse oblige comes from Justice Clarence Thomas.

As one of the few public intellectuals to grasp the gravity of social and financial excommunication by Deep Tech (to denote Big Tech’s enmeshment with The State), and for proposing a way to prohibit wicked social and financial ouster of innocents—Justice Thomas is my hero.

To blabber on about simply finding alternative outlets to Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, PayPal and other banking facilities is asinine verging on the criminal. Coming from political representatives, such advice ought to guarantee loss of face, even political expulsion.

The ordinary guy or girl (check) is told to go up against economic and political entities whose revenues exceed the GDP of quite a number of G20 nations combined.

“It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information,” inveighs Justice Thomas:

“A person could always choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.”

I’d go further. It would hardly be hyperbole, in driving home Justice Thomas’s ingenious point, to put it thus:

With respect to financial de-platforming, barring someone from PayPal is like prohibiting a passenger from crossing the English Channel by high-speed train, via ferry and by means of 90 percent of airplanes.

“Sure, some options remain for you to explore, you hapless loser. Go to it!” …

… READ THE REST on WND.COM, The Unz Review, Townhall.com, The New American and CNSNews.com.

Next Week: Part 3, “Mercer & Mystery Man’s Big-Tech Solutions.”


 

UPDATED (8/13): NEW PODCAST: The Murky, Meandering Douglas Murray, Darling of Conservatism Inc, Leading Us Nowhere

Argument, Celebrity, Conservatism, Critique, Europe, Nationalism, Neoconservatism

NEW ON PODCAST: “The Murky, Meandering Douglas Murray, Darling of Conservatism Inc, Leading Us Nowhere”:

https://tinyurl.com/4znm4wbz

Hard Truth examines the wishy-washy work of anti-Trump, pro-censorship softie Douglas Murray, darling of Conservatism Inc, and finds there is not much there. Little Lord Fauntleroy is intellectually naked.

The Murky, Meandering Douglas Murray, Darling of Conservatism Inc, Leading Us Nowhere” is on YouTube, too.  https://youtu.be/BkeI-azpd1c

 

Murray has his fan boys. They refuse to address our substantive arguments, but, rather, engage in ad hominen (psychologizing about our motivation is a form of ad hominem). It used to be that critics (like David and I) were free to engage in critique. Now, if one does it, fan boys complain. Refute our arguments, don’t complain about them.

UPDATE (8/13): Check out the noisy letter exchanges for this YouTube. My replies:

In reply to more ad hominem, jealousy:

How do you explain, then, the praise David and I offered for Mark Steyn who, unlike Murray, is intellectually substantial. Why not address our substantive arguments, rather than engage in ad hominen (psychologizing about our motivation is a form of ad hominem). It used to be that critics engaged in critique. Now if one does it, fan boys complain. Refute our arguments, don’t complain about them.

To the “Murray is fighting our fight” nonsense:

On my side of the pond, Katie Hopkins and Trump are considered hardcore, effective conservatives. Tellingly, Douglas Murray HATES THEM. He says so! If anything, he’s an ineffectual effete who waters down The Struggle. How does that help us? (He’s a neoconservative; wrote a book about how great that philosophical blight is.) David and myself have done a public service. But nobody likes hard truth; people prefer being fans of the latest popular TV ponce.

To the, “Oh, you just don’t like the lovely boy” argument:

Wrong. Murray’s actions and empty words are what cause disdain. Our arguments were clear. Clear examples were read out from Murray’s own text. Address those. He intimates, for example, that he’s happy that highly effective conservatives have been banned (N. Fuentes and K. Hopkins). He never once shows, moreover, a feel for unfettered free speech. On my side of the pond, you are no conservative without that understanding. In a post I penned about him, Murray fortifies his lack of strong opposition to Tech censorship by saying NOT that he abhors Big Tech’s tyranny, but, to quote his vague dissembling, “Big Tech are not up to the task.” The premise of that idiotic quip is that there is a censor out there that IS UP TO THE TASK. Wrong. I’m debating with you in good faith. rise to that challenge and do the same.