Category Archives: Neoconservatism

UPDATED (9/28): NEW COLUMN: No, Lara Logan, Only Simpletons Think Afghanistan Is Simple

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

Leave a reply

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.

UPDATED (9/28): Afghans have hereditary disorders due to marriage between relatives.

 

UPDATE II: Genghis Bush Destroyed A Country Or Two, Now Turns On His Countrymen

America, Bush, Homeland Security, Iraq, Middle East, Nationalism, Nationhood, Neoconservatism

2 Replies

The Shrub, as George Bush was called during the heyday of his destructive powers—and having destroyed a country or two and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan nationals—now turns on Americans. Proper:

… we have seen growing evidence that the dangers to our country can come not only across borders, but from violence that gathers within. There is little cultural overlap between violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home. But in their disdain for pluralism, in their disregard for human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit. And it is our continuing duty to confront them. …

In the words of Andrew Breitbart: “Fuck you. War.”

Reading for Patriots: “January 6 Committee: Menstrual America Vs. MAGA America,” or, “Trumpeting The Hardcore Libertarian Take On Jan. 6 Capitol Incident.”

UPDATE I: Genghis Bush (corrected the title) was talking about the January 6 Trumpsters or “the sixers,” as Musil Ken calls them. Not in a million years would I have imagined that any America Firster would misconstrue this evil man to be defending Robert E. Lee and the like. Our side is hopeless if someone thought thus.

UPDATE II: For heaven’s sake; when Genghis Bush laments the destruction of  “national symbols,” he doesn’t mean confederate or other historic monuments; he means The State; Uncle Sam; The Ultimate Predator.

* Image courtesy of “The Spoof.”

UPDATED (9/7): Lara Logan, Tucker Carlson’s Kissinger, Discovers Occam’s Razor And Misapplies The Theory of Simple

America, Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Neoconservatism, Politics, Pop-Culture, Pseudo-intellectualism, South-Africa

Leave a reply

Were it possible to “lose face,” in this day-and-age, I’d say Fox New persona Tucker Carlson is embarrassing himself having crowned Lara Logan as his go-to Henry Kissinger on Afghanistan. That’s an indictment right there.

Carlson is also in thrall to Logan’s ersatz “philosophical” observations, treating this shamelessly confident woman as a Delphic oracle of sort.

You might have heard Logan claim recently and repetitively that everything in the world is very simple.  “Everything is simple,” she keeps intoning in her appearances on the nepotistic Fox News. Logan’s “simple” premise being that America is omnipotent. Whatever occurs under its watch is all planned.

Ridiculous and wrong, yet Tucker giggles in delight.

They want you to believe Afghanistan is complicated. 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… But at its heart, every single thing in the world… always comes down to one or two things …”

Ridiculous and wrong why? Primarily because Logan’s explanation for America’s defeat in Afghanistan is not even the simplest explanation, despite her claim that it is. The simplest explanation, based on as much information as possible, would be that the US was outsmarted and outmaneuvered, and that the mission was impossible in the first place. Here:

Unlike Lara Kissinger Logan of Fox News, who “thinks” America could have won a war that other superpowers have lost—the Chinese and the Iranians are hip to what just happened. This was “probably one of the best conceived and planned guerrilla campaigns ever,” says Mike Martin, a former British army officer in Helmand province, now at King’s College London. “The Taliban went into every district and flipped all the local militias by doing deals along tribal lines.”

It would appear that our new Roger Scruton of philosophy likely read up recently on Occam’s Razor, which is a broad principle—hardly a philosophy—and she is currently applying it to everything under the sun, with little evidence or geopolitical and historic understanding in support of her Theory of Simple.

Occam’s Razor via the Browser’s first-page search:

What is an example of Occam’s razor?
For example, if a doctor is examining a patient with a high fever and cough, they may settle on the simplest explanation: the patient has a cold. … Occam’s razor is a good rule of thumb if you remember that it depends on making fewer assumptions 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 in the world.

RELATED: “Lara Logan: ‘Conservative’ Media’s Latest Blond Ambition”

IMPORTANT:

Platitudes are what media, liberal and con, offer about their own drab homogeneity. A fellow South African expat, the well-to-do Lara Logan has not used her influenceto expose the horrors unfolding in our homeland of South Africa. Had Logan done so in 2011, she’d have been authentically heroic.
It’s certainly too late for Logan, who’s been mum about the systematic murder of whites in the country of our birth, to be a hero to South Africans.

UPDATE (9/7): What do you know? The Economist did not ask foxette Lara Logan for her “analysis” of “why America failed in Afghanistan.” The august magazine asked Henry Kissinger, a statesman, for his analysis. Kissinger says what this writer said over a decade back in columns like these. Read:

“To Pee Or Not To Pee is Not the Question”

“‘JUST WAR’ FOR DUMMIES”

“Grunts, Get In Touch With Your Inner-Muslim”

“Afghanistan: A War Obama Can Call His Own”

Excerpts from “Henry Kissinger on why America failed in Afghanistan” to follow.

UPDATED (8/23): Afghanistan And Its Neighbors; China And Those Uyghurs

America, China, Foreign Policy, Globalism, Individual Rights, Islam, Jihad, Military, Neoconservatism, Propaganda

Leave a reply

“The Uyghurs, the Uyghurs; China is oppressing the Uyghurs. Our values, our values; being an American means you must fret about the Uyghurs. You hear me, hillbilly? In fact, you can’t be an American unless you worry about the Uyghurs.” (Watch me!)

That’s the bobble heads on TV. As dumb as fuck, bereft of any deep, historical or geopolitical insights—they mouth shallow talking points, extracted from Wokipedia.

These TV twits and twats are used to telling their receptive, equally “knowledgeable” audiences that China has “thrown a million Uyghurs into prison camps.”

True (not that it’s any of our business).

What the dummies on the idiot’s lantern don’t tell you is that, “Uyghurs count among thousands of foreign jihadists active in Afghanistan, mostly enlisted in Taliban ranks.”

I’m not saying China is justified in interning a Jihad-prone population living in its midst, but neither are the overlords of the West (see “Our Overlords Who Art in D.C (2010)”, if you want to know how “overlords” drifted into such popular use) justified in jailing January 6 protesters  without due process, allowing the banning of innocent, law-abiding citizens from the banking establishments, threatening those who defend their homes with incarceration, on and on.

And it is about American dissidents that I care.

While menstrual America frets over “the images, the images, oh the images (“the children, the children)” coming out of Afghanistan; the grown-ups (or the men) in the region, whose countries abut Afghanistan, have gotten together to ensure that Jihad doesn’t spill over into their countries. It’s called acting in the national interest.

Excellent analysis in “Afghanistan’s neighbours are preparing for life with the Taliban: Regional powers are not looking forward to it. But they cannot agree on what to do about it.”

UPDATE (8/23): “What Beijing has offered the Taliban so far is an open hand and a hint of legitimacy. In late July, China invited some Taliban leaders to meet Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing. It was a significantly public gesture to demonstrate goodwill toward the insurgent group. In exchange, Taliban leaders pledged to leave Chinese interests in Afghanistan alone and not to harbor any anti-China extremist groups.” (NPR)

Sounds like China has a modest foreign policy. Striking not a military blow, but an agreement. If only…

*Images courtesy The Economist