Jeff Jarvis is pro-American


this. It’s an unexceptional, and unexceptionable, article by Stryker McGuire,

the London bureau chief of Newsweek. The subject is anti-Americanism. It’s fading,

he says: Bernard-Henri Levy recently won a debate in London arguing the proposition

that ‘The American Empire is a force for good’. There’s a whole America out

there which isn’t Bush and his policies, and it does great things, from encouraging

competition and entrepeneurial practices to separating Egyption conjoined twins.

Now read

this. That selfsame Observer article has turned überblogger Jeff Jarvis

into some kind of crazed jingoist, calling McGuire a "cultural traitor"

and posting a series of blog entries, each more frenzied than the last. The

final (at least so far) is this "I am pro-American and I’m goddamn proud

of it" screed. (At one point, Jarvis conflates McGuire and the 9/11 terrorists

into one "anti-American" lump, and then compares them to Hitler. Very


Never mind, for the moment, that Jarvis accuses McGuire of saying that all

Americans are ammoral (sic) – something McGuire never came close to saying.

(Has Jarvis forgotten that bloggers are pretty good at checking out original

sources, especially when you link to them?) What interests me is the comments

on Jarvis’s blog entry. Read them, and you’ll find a long series of Americans

basically saying "Yeah! You go, guy! I’m a pro-American, too!" It’s

weird: it’s as though the comments section of this particular blog entry has

become a support group for the poor, beleaguered pro-Americans in America. First

it was white males who claimed

victimhood, now it’s patriots?

When a Newsweek journalist can’t even bring up the subject of fading anti-Americanism

without being bitch-slapped by soi-disant liberals like Jarvis, I think

it’s pretty clear how difficult it’s going to be to successfully oppose Bush

in the 2004 presidential election. Reading the comments on Jarvis’s blog, one

is struck by the way in which "I’m pro-American" serves as a kind

of trump card, successfully squelching all attempt at reasoned debate.

Let me just single out one theme from Jarvis’s post. "When people attack

my countrymen so readily, as if it is the accepted wisdom of the age, I have

no choice but to defend myself," he says. "This is a very serious

point. It is a warning: Keep attacking America and Americans — not just American

policy — and beware of the hands into which you play."

It goes without saying that these kind of threats go down very badly with foreigners

and anti-Americans. But it would seem that they go down very well with

the man on the street, the average American voter. And after starting two wars,

there’s no way that Bush is going to lose out to his Democratic opponent on

the let’s-be-tough-with-those-who-hate-us front.

Jarvis’s moral certitude – he makes this quite explicit – is born

of the fact that he came close to being killed himself on September 11. I can

see how someone in that situation might have a pretty black-and-white view of

the world. But it’s not just New Yorkers who feel this way: it’s the the whole

Bush administration. And black-and-white moral certitude plays well at the polls.

Just ask Reagan, or ask just about any American what they think of Clinton’s

foreign policy. If it’s hard to soundbite, it’s hard to admire.

So at the moment, I’m decidedly bearish on the Democrats’ prospects in 2004.

They can’t win on domestic policy, because the economy is finally turning around

in the wake of Bush’s fiscally-insane tax cuts. They can’t win on foreign policy,

because their vision is more nuanced and subtle than that of the Bush administration,

and therefore more open to being attacked on grounds like Jarvis’s. And they

certainly can’t win the fund-raising race. It seems to me that their only hope

is narrowly psephological: if they can carry California and Florida, they might

be able to squeeze a win, maybe even with a minority of the popular vote. But

the nation will remain bitterly divided.

Never mind, though. At least Jeff Jarvis will always stand up for himself,

his countrymen, his country’s ideals, and the only heritage he knows.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Jeff Jarvis is pro-American

  1. Stefan Geens says:

    Damn, every time I pull my punches, I end up regretting it. I last checked in with Jeff on Nov 11 when he was and I was about to lump him in with Mark Steyn for a fisking but then decided against it because a) the post seemed so muddled, whereas Steyn was being crystal clear and b) because Jeff seemed to have some sense balance, as evinced by his response to this comment:


    “Well, the thing about generalizations, while the might not apply to everyone, they apply to most people in a group.

    For instance, while not every European hates Americans & Jews, most Europeans in fact do. And this is reflected in how their governments act, so the generalization is important way to explain why their governments act that way.”

    Posted by Jeremy at November 11, 2003 04:36 PM

    “Well, Jeremy, I’d say that’s a bit strong. Part of my point about generalizing about Europeans is that that’s what it sounds like when they generalize about us. It’s not so simple, either way.”

    Posted by Jeff Jarvis at November 11, 2003 04:43 PM

    What could possibly have happened in the intervening week that has turned Jeff into a Jeremy?

    The problem with Jarvis’s article is twofold: He is the one who gets to decide what is attacking America and what is merely attacking American policy. And he conflates speech with terrorism.

    He would be a lot more productive in his pro-American advocacy if he put his blogging time to good use countering the arguments of his ideological opponents. He might find that some of the argumente carry quite some weight.

  2. Stefan Geens says:

    Actually, on closer reading of the Jarvis piece you blog, I don’t think it would be fair to conclude that Jarvis thinks all Muslims are bad, like Steyn does. Jarvis is merely guilty of generalizing about criticism of America, against his better judgment.






    The following is submitted in the hope that the content herein may provide a guide to a better understanding of the nature of terrorism, the true reality of anti-Americanism and the real [and often overlooked] origins of anti-American sentiments amongst many non-Americans. When these truths are squared up to, managing threats to the American Dream and way of life should at least have moved beyond its present status of hopelessly depressing intellectual incompetence, and terminally dangerous impoverichment of imagination.

    I am herewith, sending text of the material by the above title, which work may be found on the internet, either at or

    *It may interest you that I have come under unrelenting repression and physical danger on account of the views hereunder, a development that has merely reinforced the truth of my premises and conclusions. More interesting however, is the fact that there have been few anti-Americans of my aquaintance who did not yeild to the logic of the position therefrom constructed, at the very least, acknowledging the pivotal role of envy in anti-American sentiments. Indeed the majority of my detractors have opposed themselves to my views chiefly on account of the success with which they expose the reality of anti-American phenomena to the general public thereby exposing anti-Americaness to logical onslaught*


    Jesutega Onokpasa.




    The last century saw the emergence of the United States as undoubtedly the pre-eminent player on the international arena. The high points of that century – from an American perspective at least – were the Second World War and the Cold War coupled, needless to say, with the monumental consequences of both. Both particulars of international history probably represent the best exemplifiers of the unquestionable pivotal destiny of the American nation within the international system. The Second World War resulted from the hangover of statesmen who had gatecrashed into an era that had left them behind. These catastrophic misfits, failing to recognize the opportunities inherent in an emerging epoch of international friendship, cooperation, and respect for fellow members of the international community, sought parochially to reinvent their national prestige by means of strategies inevitably becoming consigned to the dustbin of history. This is the only valid context within which may be situated the inhumanly anti-social belligerence of the barbarians of that era.

    Thankfully, these criminalised states and their atrocious militaries were deservingly humiliated, properly defeated and fortunately reformed and purged, socially at least, of their more internally and externally consequential motivations and energies. That at a stage the United States had to resort to the inevitable expedient of the use of its nuclear capabilities cannot to any tenable degree, detract from the unparalleled pedigree of its salvivic niche in that unfortunate episode in world history. Surely, only the most irretrievably intellectually dislocated would hold a country to be under obligation to refrain from the deployment of the more devastating features of its arsenal, in the face of the willful refusal of deadly enemy states to embrace the commonsensical path of reason and honour in the search for peace. In short, therefore, those to blame for Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the illegitimate leaders of Japan, who owing to their commitment to the decimation of others, had led their countrymen astray, with groundless assurances of racial superiority and empty promises of vain glory.

    Interestingly, these world powers, who owing to the dangerous error of their ways had incontrovertibly forfeited their entitlement to corresponding respect, never actually paid the price of international infamy. Upon conquest, they were treated with kids gloves by the United States and its allies. Rather than mete out to them, such short worth as was their trademark disposition to their preys on the international arena, the United States and its allies demonstrated their commitment to the moral high ground by guaranteeing their reemergence as world leaders of the legitimate species. Such became the fruitful fate of the Japans and the Germanys of this world.


    While the United States alongside Britain and other respectable members of the international community were thus employed in the light of their strategic commitment to the course of reconstruction in the aftermath one war, the followers of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels unleashed another on the world. That the progressive countries of the world, now allied with erstwhile enemies, Japan and Germany, now remarkably rehabilitated, also won The Cold War, unravels as another installment in the certain destiny of the American nation as the pathfinder for the modern world.

    The brethren of Marx and Engels were, and remain – alongside racists and ultra nationalists, the most misfitted phenomena on the landscape of ideas. Most painfully, having eminently unearthed the economic dimensions of the origins of social phenomena, Marx and Engels ruined their spectacularly brilliant perspective by reducing those origins wholly to their economic particulars. Worse still, they topped off their entire platform with a laughable prescriptive prediction, which utterly and unwarrantedly consigned the future of humanity to a ridiculously utopian wishfulness. This intellectually stranded concept unraveled upon close scrutiny as an inconceivable nonsense they and their cohorts preferred to call a “classless” and “stateless society”. By enveloping the progression of the communist model in this miserably unattainable and hopelessly foolhardy terminus, the apostles of Marxist ideology limited their followers to the path of inescapable futility. Thus did the entire communist project begin on an intellectually handicapped footing, a consequence of which was its inevitable collapse in the face of the onslaught of the superior models internationalised by the United States and its allies.

    The irony of Marxism is that nowhere have the societal defects it so properly upbraided been probably more effectively corrected than in what would ordinarily qualify as the most capitalist state of all – the United States. No other country has so effectively and efficiently reversed and superseded the objectionable dimensions of capitalism as to have erected a society calibrated by the closest “status quo” to an equality of opportunity – in short, a “classless society”! Indeed, the pre-eminence of America’s welfarist and interventionist credentials reside in the tenacity with which what has become popular as the “American Dream”, was secured with more beneficial consequences for its citizens and the nationals of other countries.

    This achievement has doubtlessly emerged as entirely superior to what pertains to the promises inherent in living in any other country on the planet. Consequently, what no communist country could ever rewardingly or sustainably provide for its citizens, the United States achieved with stupefyingly humbling success. The reinventional particulars of that feat remain ubiquitous features of current empirical phenomena to the extent that no better example of the proliferation of opportunity as a utility inherent in any model of political – economy is offered in all history.

    The most committedly Marxist of communist states astonishingly proved to be the most successfully capitalist of any state in the entire history of the world. Nothing here should be construed as referring to present day China whose Marxist base, nevertheless, has all but entirely disintegrated and disappeared, and whose superstructure, though totalitarian, is Marxist only in pretence. The ultimate Marxist success was the dead and buried Soviet Union, a bewilderingly self-contradictory behemoth that took the concept and paraphernalia of the state to its zenith. Every feature of “base’’ and “superstructure” as well as all the essences and accidents of the “state” which emerged in their critique of the capitalist epoch by Marx and Engels, most hypocritically and contradictorily obtained their truest empirical support in the substructure and superstructure of the Soviet Union. No other politico-economic entity in the history of man ever so successfully consolidated the factors and consequences of the bourgeois state as did the politburo and apparatchiks of the Soviet Union. Indeed, when Marxists subsequently developed ideas alluding to a capitalist centre and its satellites of countries, they might as well have been offering a detailed and impeccable description of a central Russia and its satellite Soviet and non – Soviet communist victims. In truth therefore, the communist parties were the new ultra – predatory ruling classes, the politburo becoming the sole and all embracing monopoly, with a more irretrievably captive prey in the de facto proletarian masses of the countries they had captured. As to the strategies by which the ruling class, by means of its monopoly of intellectual and intellectualizing resources and devices, kept the proletariat under subjugation, nowhere were they more perfectly monopolized and deployed than in the communist states. The ruling classes of the communist states, thus magnificently succeeded in gaining such maximum control over every imaginable factor of production to the extent of incorporating entire countries into what de facto emerged as the capitalist portfolios of the communist parties of the world . No capitalist – not even the arch capitalist monster, Nelson A. Rockefeller with all his tirelessly combinational tendencies – could have dreamed of a parallel conquest of all factors and stages of production in the creation of the perfect capitalist paradise.

    Ironically therefore, while the ruling classes of capitalism managed a progression into every realistic, desirable and sustainable consequence of Marxism, the ruling classes constructed by the inheritors of Marxist ideology, somehow managed to create and perfect for themselves, the only truly capitalist paradise in the history of political – economy. That the United States has survived as the most consequential and celebrated egalitarian society with the most perfected proliferation of socio – economic opportunity, unravels as the saddest commentary on the hypocritical legacy of the followers of Marx, Engels and the more revolutionarily intrepid of their rabidly capitalist successors.

    I concede, as may be gleaned from the foregoing, that Marx and Engels constructed an explanatory model whose factual dimensions remain partially unimpeached and practically unimpeachable. These respectable qualities of their work are however, unfortunately, restricted to their identification of the economic foundations upon which rested what they termed societies “superstructure”. Their narrow – minded amplification of those economic essences as well as their audacious exclusion of non-economic factors as features of that “base” remain utterly unproved and indeed variously disproved. As for their predictions, which upon closer scrutiny, emerge as quasi – demagogical prescriptions, they are so perfectly demarcated from all commonsense and irreparably detached from reasonable expectations as to tempt the critic to write off the entire Marxist model as intellectually infamous. Worst of all was the resourcefulness with which the Lenins, Zedongs, Castros and Kims of the Marxist wasteland, processed the communist creed into the most maximum religion of all time, in the face of their endless allusions to ‘’the opium of the masses’’. At any rate, the Marxist model has miserably unraveled in the light of the official revisionism presently dictating the pace of the economies of the last remaining “communist” states. These revisionist tendencies have become so expressed and entrenched as to have permanently consigned the Marxist experiment to the graveyard of history.

    In short therefore, no properly communist state ever existed wherefore none remains. Needless to say, none ever will. The resolution pertaining thereto must thus be sort in a submission to the effect that Marxist ideology was an unrealizable nonsense from the start. To the extent to which it promised the redemption of human society, it was a non starter. The Marxist platform was a nonsense because it contained a prescription, disguised as a prediction, to which human nature is wholly unfitted. Human nature is inescapably unsuited to the inevitable totalitarianism of the maximum state that must succeed the “withering away” of the bourgeois state. Marxist allusions to an ‘’administration’’ managing the factors and processes of production are totally inelegant from an intellectual point of view; surely such an administration would inevitably combine in itself, the fundamental features of the state to fulfill that mission. This of course, was what occurred from every Marxist experiment, unsustainable demarcations between socialist and communist stages of Marxist progression notwithstanding. The idea that a time would ever come when society would exist in accordance with an economic regime whereby “from each” was taken “according to his ability” and to each “was given” according to his ‘’need” is entirely utopian and meaningful only in religious dimensions. Marxists of course, ostensibly had absolutely no use for religion or so they claimed. In the end, their ideology, propagated by means of an excruciating monopoly of requisite resources was so resourcefully managed as to have recorded greater success in mind control than any religion within a corresponding time span.

    To effectively implement an economic state of affairs in which from each is taken in accordance with his ability, exchanging same to each according to his needs, the most maximum, totalitarian, consequential and all pervasive of states must be erected. Besides, the abilities and needs of men are not such phenomena as to be capable of quantification. Indeed, any qualification of the same would of necessity require a degree of arbitrariness necessitating the continuation and further consolidation of the state. Only the irretrievably dogmatised would fail to see this. Such therefore, unfortunately, was the intellectual status of Marx and his ideological clan.

    Having demonstrated the disabilities of Marxist thought and examined the futility of corresponding experiments, I shall now proceed to briefly situate the destiny of the United States within the fate of the post – communist world. For the avoidance of doubts as to the delimitations of that world, I do not hesitate, in accordance with my delineations above, to include to that world, all post – communist states, as well as the all too familiar pretenders to communist survival. These of course include China, Vietnam and Cuba. As for North Korea, again in accordance with the method above, it must be written off as the most capitalist of states and as a consequence, the most perfectly failed Marxist experiment of all.

    The successors to the Soviet Union including the chieftain of them all – Russia, have all to varying degrees been rescued by the West, led by the United States. This is a fact of contemporary history, disclosing significances of such de facto salvivic interventions encompassing such strategies as direct and indirect foreign investment, as well as, aid, grants and loans. China has avoided the fate of the former Soviet Union by looking outwards to trade with and investment from the West – chiefly the United States. Vietnam and Cuba now value such sense as pertains to the dollar above the precepts of communist ideology. As it were, Marx and Engels – even these two – are constrained to dream the American dream in their graves. Perhaps even they too, were capitalists after all, just like their morally bankrupt ideological children after them.


    The aftermath of the cold war has witnessed the emergence of terrorism as the ultimate threat to world peace. Terrorism as a strategy of conflict would ordinarily represent an attractive expedient for a party at a marked and unadjustable disadvantage from the point of view of the balance of conventional power. Where A’s military status is such that any conventional conflict with B would unravel in a war won even before it begins, B’s resort to counter – balancing alternatives such as terrorism would, all things being equal, validly aspire to the status of reasonable inevitability. All things being equal, that is.

    In reality, the attractiveness of terrorism, quite apart from its counter – balancing qualities, inhere in those peculiarities of its, which allow usually non official platforms unwilling or unable to acquire conventional capabilities, to nevertheless express themselves by means of relatively less costly resources. Ironically, herein however, lies the strategic undesirability of terrorism. The less powerful party takes to terrorism not because it retains a monopoly of such strategies but quite simply because it finds conventional alternatives unattractive or quite impossible to acquire, manage, deploy and employ. In this light therefore, the conventionally better provisioned and thus ordinarily stronger party, both retains this conventional advantage in addition to a potential capability to resort to terrorism, terrorist potential being a ubiquitous resource.

    That most such countries do not develop that potential is not indicative of the non possession of such abilities but merely demonstrative of the absence in them of the necessary desperation which inspires the weaker party to terrorist pursuits. This, amongst other factors, would explain why the United States or non official platforms of its citizenry have thus far refrained from the terrorist expedient. When however, the terrorist deployments of the conventionally weaker party increasingly succeed in constituting the desired effective counterbalance, the stronger party usually and validly resorts to similar strategies as has been the case with the state of Israel.

    I now briefly examine the historical terrorist record from the point of view of anti – Americanism in terms of its contemporary consequences and significance. The Pam Am tragedy over Lockerbie, Scotland, as well as the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, coupled with other similar attacks, all properly fit into the contextual fundamentals of the 9/ 11 infamy of the World Trade Center attack. They were all anti – American strikes inspired by anti – American sentiments, seeking anti – American outcomes. The 9 /11 episode constitutes the ultimate attempt thus far by anti – American terrorist platforms to occupy the consciousness of a World whose socio – economic accelerations left them behind.

    What the terrorists sought to accomplish by that and similar attacks is the subject of a continuing debate I find entirely academic. It is clear enough that their ethos and energies are reduceable to an anti – American effort, originating from miserably untenable premises. These therefore, are extreme enemies, whose world view is so hopelessly hostage to arcane directions of religion, pseudo-history and ultra-nationalism as to ensure the ordinary permanence of their commitment to implacable and unachievable anti-social goals. It goes without saying of course that any such agenda is utterly unacceptable and deserving of terminal attention.

    The anti – American complaints of terrorists and their apologists are legion. A famous line is resourced from American support for Israel. Only such as are bereft of logical power and are blind to the historical record would be impressed. Israel started out as a wholly respectable member of the international community. Even now, its official languages remain both Jewish and Arabic with Arab citizenship of Israel surviving from its very foundation. From that on set began a perplexingly barbaric Arabic commitment to the destruction of the state and the extinction of the Jewish component of its population. The Arab agenda was thus irretrievably illegitimate from the start. American commitment to the survival of Israel therefore, was and remains to the same extent, correspondingly valid. As for the justifiability of Israeli efforts in self-defense – even in their pre – emptively offensive dimensions, that needless to say, goes without question. What is unfortunately objectionable is the degree to which those efforts have crystallized into a seemingly immovable and catastrophic hard-line. Worse still however is the fact that this progressively idealized counter – extremism arose in reaction to the even more unwarrantedly extreme platform of the Arab World.

    That the Jewish nation is entitled to a state in the present location of the Israeli state is a given, requiring neither explanation nor apology. What is controversial is the expansion of Israeli territory beyond their 1948 limits. That the Palestinian nation is equally entitled to its own state in the same region and without prejudice to 1948 Israeli territorial limits is to the same degree, a given. While it is therefore necessary for both nations to have proper states with sovereign independent governments within mutually inviolable territorial set ups, it is not necessary for either nation to secure those outcomes to the prejudice of the other. Unfortunately, the Palestinians and their Arab cohorts invented the prejudiced motives and processes that have undone the region. This fact of history furnishes hardline Israeli tendencies with grounds upon which they may be understood though certainly not admitted into validity.

    While terrorist and genocidal tendencies amongst Arabs cannot morally justify the condition of the Palestinian nation, they render all possibility of a workable resolution of the Palestinian question stranded in the mid-air of conflicting crisis management. The most catastrophic installment in this bewilderingly banal morass is undoubtedly 9/11. It was a hopelessly unjustifiable effort in futile barbarism that must unravel to the undoing of its perpetrators and their applauding savage fief.

    American reaction to the aggression, which peaked in 9/11, has been deplored in particulars astonishingly lacking in commonsensical integrity. How can any nation be held to be under obligation or even expectation to refrain from retaliation in the face of savage onslaught? Such retaliation merely constitutes self-defense of the offensive and unavoidable species, and would remain unquestionably valid even in situations where such onslaught encompassed a deserved reaction to unacceptable conduct. This without doubt, is far removed from the instant scenario arising from Arabic tendencies calibrated by an utterly shameful world view which distinguishes the Arabic agenda as intolerably dangerous to world civilization. While indeed, it is, as of a right, the entitlement of any people to embrace any system of beliefs of their choosing, it is equally an imperative for other societies on the arena of world intercourse, to oppose any inherent tendencies prejudicial to their enjoyment of a corresponding right. This suffices as a proper equation for the experience of extreme Islamism and ultra nationalist Arabism in their interaction with civilized man.

    As to the legitimacy of the degree to which the United States, Britain and their allies reacted to the aggression, it is secure in the air tight validating currency of the potentially cataclysmic dimensions of deployed and emergent extremist energies. Indeed, American reaction, is only illegitimate in terms of the relatively puny particulars of its retaliatory offensive, and probably additionally so in the light of its overzealous commitment to the reconstruction of defeated societies whose tribulations were self induced. It should probably had fared better, had it merely made short work of its enemies and their compatriots, as is their culture, and withdrew, abandoning them to the debris and devastation of their well deserved fate.

    Even more ridiculously untenable are those expectations which required the United States and Britain to have restricted their reaction to the police action which liberated the Afghan people from their Taliban predators, a flabbergasting anti – social breed who seemed to have been transported into the modern world from the darkest ages of the most primitive pre-historical epoch of uncivilized man. Such audaciously impossible expectations actually arise from a narrow mindedness emanating from intellectual inadequacy and a poverty of analytical direction. The nature of terrorism is such that it derives its sustenance from factors inclusive of the approval of its client base. That base, for the purpose of the instant subject matter, included as of fact, Afghanistan and Iraq, and continues to include Iran, Syria and Sudan, all thus emerging as proper and fitting targets for offensive action. That the United States, Britain and their allies limited their reaction to the most irresponsibly dangerous bases of all, is an exemplifier of their command of the more desirable dispositions of proper international behaviour.

    The least intellectually elegant critics of post 9/11 American conduct have constructed their platform out of unbelievably daft allusions to the fact that the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have not been rewarded by an end to terrorist activity. This perspective may be faulted on two counts. Firstly, terrorism continues because the reaction was inadequate and too rewardingly reconstructive to the benefit of the terrorist base. Secondly, terrorism continues due to the activity of remnant units of a dying movement whose continued activity merely establishes the implacability of the terrorist movement to the extent that a resort to non-militant strategies by the United States would have proved to be catastrophically futile.

    Unfortunately for our world, the future of terrorism is a minefield of nightmarish possibilities. A day may come when terrorist targets are forced in desperation to return offence to friendly countries, on the grounds that their official respectability not withstanding, they qualify as valid targets where their nationals perpetrate terrorist acts, or where their nationals applaud them. Such a horribly deplorable particular may sooner than later unfortunately emerge as a feature of Saudi – American relations for instance.

    America and its allies may come to a watershed whereby they too embrace the terrorist path if only to prove the point of the non – monopolistic nature of the possession of terrorist abilities. This is a point already sufficiently proved by the Israeli state. The consequences for world peace of the deployment of every CIA operative to terrorist outcomes, for instance, would be better imagined than experienced.

    The foregoing nightmarish scenario of course is restricted to terrorism of the official specie. This is the least usual and more predictable kind of terrorist phenomena. More normal and infinitely less predictable is vintage terrorist activity conceived, managed and executed by non – official entities. A time may come when elements of the citizenry of present terrorist – target countries may come to such anger at terrorist audacity and such frustration with conventional reaction that they too take to terrorism. Imagine 9/11 in reverse. The perpetrators are native born New Yorkers, proud Americans secure in the destiny of their heritage. Their target is Saudi Arabia, holy land of Islam and home to the majority of the perpetrators of 9/11. And, these new breed terrorists fly their suicidal sorties into Mecca or Medina. God forbid! Those who have ears let them hear! Those who perpetrate terrorist acts must come to terms with the non – monopolistic nature of their trade. Those they target today may target them tomorrow. Indeed when the next level is attained and an eye is properly given for an eye, the terrorist hero of today may have to pay a price far more costly than any rewards he hoped would accrue from the sum total of every terrorist pursuit.


    The sub-conscious of the terrorist ensures a pre-occupation geared towards the super-imposition of his sorry circumstances into the conditions of his betters. The ultra-nationalist Arabist and his extremist Islamist co-traveler achieves contact with achievements American and says to himself: ‘’Why America? Why not us?’’

    Unfortunately for the terrorist and his doomed platform, even greater American achievements must come to horrify their envy- wasted mentality in the years to come. The future of America will be, like its present and its past, a story scripted in glory, a golden epic of consequential man in epoch making strides on the sands of time. Like it or not, admit it or not, the history of the United States is a record of social man ascendant. It is the history of the land of humanity in unity, the reward of upwardly mobile interacting man, rooted in the ethos of the mixing of the peoples and the inevitable transformation of that integration into the destiny of humankind. It is the creation of every ethnic group, tribe, nationality, race and people of our planet. It is the showpiece of the Earth, its ultimate claim to distinction in the universe, our evidence of the dividends of peaceful coexistence and our preeminent example of the profitability of civilized inter-existence. We are, all of us from every nation, land and clime on the face of our planet, founders and builders of this peculiar commonwealth from the compelling premises of our most noble motivations. America is thus a fitting return on that cosmic investment, the superior testament in all history to the potential of our socio – intellectual endowment as a race, as well as the ultimate monument to the prestige of our achievement as humankind. Being the most differentiated country from the stand point of national origins and the stupefying creation resulting there from, the American mosaic unravels as the progression and demonstrative destination of humanity’s congregational circumstance in all its socially astute ramifications.

    It is therefore the calling and obligation of all men of reason and honour to invest the reality of America with its valid situations in the scheme of truth. Thus must that endangered species of decent humanity exercise its intellect and process its perspective in resourceful directions in the struggle to displace the strongholds of falsehood.


    Envy and all its dismal associations being entirely inconsistent with that noble worldview, doom all the pettiness and illogical characterizations of their false condition to the misery of unsalvageable nakedness in the crystal of that enlightenment.

    America is the victim of envy. The paranoia calibrating its perception abroad, is a lesson in the catastrophic dimensions of conspiratorial dispositions. Hatched in consolidated dogma, such envy actually results from the self – perceived inferiority status of their countries by a myriad of America – haters. America is bad for these self – dislocated breed because their own countries are not good. She isn’t even bad because their countries are self – acknowledgedly good, but fundamentally because it is unthinkable and unbearable to their pervertedly constituted mindsets for any one country to be so comparatively successful. This entirely self – inflicted fallacy is the foundation of execrable hatred and the treasure throve of the brethren of permanent ideological disabilities.

    Those who hate America travel in silence to truth and riot against reason. They are the failed minds of failed states of failed societies, whose perceptional impoverishment takes expression in faction and from the standpoint of our common humanity, in the most macabre of fratricidal dispositions. They are the willfully blind who woefully failed to re-engineer their mindsets in positive directions, consequently becoming the bulwark of antisocial tendencies, able only to process their preoccupations in non-beneficial directions. In their insane commitment to the overthrow of reason, they multiplied that handicap in a cultivated, self-deprecating rejection of reality. These therefore, are those who balked at enriching their perspectives with those transformative particulars necessary to a harmony with empirical surroundings. Theirs became the platform of dangerously dysfunctional certitude scoffing at the imperatives of commonsense and ubiquitous reality. The conclusive justifications for this psychological tragedy, far from resting upon any foundations of misconception are actually entirely sustained upon a diet of dogmatic falsehood and institutionalized hypocrisy. The leadership of this execrable clan remains therefore, the terminally dangerous reprobates of monumental ego and abysmal reason.


    The hypocrisy of American critics is a subject matter for the analyst of patience and experience. Only such fortifications suffice to sustain a temperament of scholarly balance while acquiring a discerning familiarity with its inescapably degenerate inspirations. I take the liberty of proceeding, herefrom, by means of a workably simplified model. An Iraq decimated the Kurds, brutalized its Shiites, asphyxiated its opposition, mutilated Kuwait, terrorized its neighbours and made audaciously defiant inroads into the fragile territory of World peace.

    An America invades the former. That Iraq took no prisoners, gave no quarter and disdained all reconciliation. That America conquered and impacted such rehabilitative reconstruction as never before bestowed by any victor upon its vanquished foe. The empiricity of the model requires no elaborative support. It is the fact of contemporary reality and in its ethos, it provides a perfect specimen of a demonstrative x – ray of similar history past and emerging. Indeed in all my researches I have not found a single blameless focus on American aggression, which in all the history of American militancy has always managed to be infallibly retaliatory. I do not stand to be corrected; the requisite facts simply do not exist.

    A legion of supposedly American victims, consistently hurry to the services of the jaundiced premises and anaemic conclusions which al devout America – haters manipulate into masterpieces of fallacy. Even certain German and Japanese platforms find functions in that puzzling construct – the same ultra – colonizing Germany and Japan who having roasted their victims and cannibalized their remains were defeated only to be rewarded with infrastructural reconstruction and social rehabilitation at the expense of the United States and its allies. These of course were the precious imperatives of a civilised postwar status quo, which both countries had up till then always resourcefully denied everyone of their helpless, strangulated and de facto cannibalized victims.

    In truth, even if we concede the obviously entirely unsupportable – to the effect that the United States, indeed behaved just as irresponsibly in retaliational international policing – we nevertheless end up with a basically unmodified version of our model in terms of the significance disclosed by its moral status. These so-called victims, if indeed they were, became victims only upon and after their victimization of others. To the degree to which the victimization they relishedly unleashed was unwarranted, and to the extent to which that which they oppositionally suffered was in truth a reaction, the differentiational dimensions of such a scenario bear out our models moral pedigree. This is of course, quite apart from the solicited status of the later victimization. These adumbrations, needless to say, are altogether idealized generosities marooned upon the shore of academic exercises, totally detached from all factual indices. These so-called victims were never really victims unless that characterization was self-incurred. They are certainly not victims in the tradition of their own miserable prey and such treatment as they received was so civilized, enlightened and high – minded as to qualify for scrutiny as unintendedly remunerative.


    That the effectual qualities of the American tradition of conquest are probably always undeserved by the recipients of its largesse is certainly borne out by the base disposition of a cross section of Iraqi entities, to American post – war policy. Before the Iraqi War, a Sunni ruling class led by Saddam Hussein and his Tekriti relations, held fellow Sunnis and the majority Shiite population under servile exploitation. These elements in a doomed attempt to recreate that paradise of servitude, direct their desperation to the futility of hopeless insurgency. It seems to occur to no American critic that the worst possible quality of America’s mission in Iraq could not possibly aspire to the abysmally anti-social depths of her enemies’ agenda. As for the Shiites, whose inevitably extreme fringe regularly irritates its American and British benefactors, it is enough to view their arcane ingratitude as the price America and its allies must pay for their ridiculous commitment to treating incurable societal defects with the wholly unsuitable palliatives proper only to progressive societies.

    Here is a people, a shackled and castrated majority who having been prostrated to the over lording appetites of Saddam and company, would not dare a fart in the golden age of black gold and blood, dollars and death, as well as, all the grandstanding and mass graves of the Iraqi nightmare. Now this gargantuan conqueror to whom they unwillingly yielded all the glory and honour of their cultural pride is the prisoner of an even more colossal power, they make bold to defy. These marginal Shiites, their stone age leadership, and the retardedly infantile elements of the loose-ended fractions of their clerical equation, dare their unbelievably absurd defiance only because the American ethos stubbornly accommodates opposition to the point of a corresponding unbelievable absurdity.


    I submit as follows: the Americans are the real victims of others in their interactions with the world. While this is deplorable enough in the context of the hypocrisy, ingratitude, paranoia and envy with which anti – Americanism is invested, the American’s themselves and their astonishingly daft grasp of foreign realities and possibilities, constitute the ultimate underwriters of anti – Americanist directions. In short, the Americans have been the most clumsily unimaginative in celebrating those benefices they project to the world, as well as, the most hopelessly unrealistic in their utterly depressing weakness for self – destructive self – examination. As a matter of fact, it is my inhesitant conclusion that American foreign policy and outlook are fundamentally pointless and doomed to unprofitable outcomes. This is however not in the sense of anti Americanism nor on the entirely groundless terms its intellectually depleted platforms have stubbornly assumed, which religion, its adherents have stoically embraced to the detriment of world progress.


    In truth, what both anti – American interests and those intellectually unsound pro-American positions fault in American foreign policy and worldview, is what is perfectly proper, defensible, noble and unimpeachable in that policy. The anti – Americans rail against them because their countries cannot afford such feats while their gullible pro – American co – travelers bemoan them quite simply because their American status rests upon pseudo – proper foundations.

    What America has given to the rest of the world is not what we have necessarily earned. What it has taken in return is what it has always deserved and on terms in which it is probably always short changed. Accusations of American exploitation and imperialist tendencies defy the dictates of infallible logic and immovable empiricism. What country on the face of our planet proceeds in its international transactions in accordance with principles actually inconsistent with its self – interest? Yet this is probably the first objection one is likely to encounter from the zealots of anti – Americanism-to the effect that American motivations are unfailingly self-interest driven. How perfectly retarded! When the question is put to them, to the effect of how much non – self – interest guides the foreign affairs of their own countries, they react in the despicable nuances of the intellectually cornered.

    For a fact, all states, like all men, proceed in the interactive dimensions of their co-existence from motives that are consistently self – oriented. Altruistic calculations remain the few and far between exceptions to this rule and are almost always wholly accidental to their foreign intentions. Interestingly, the statistics pertaining to such phenomena as are validly rooted in altruism, favour America as the good neighbour characterized by such elasticity of magnanimous convictions as to subordinate all her competitors into an inferior status. Unfortunately, all the Americans recorded as returns on their good will is a harvest of ingratitude, envy, hatred, insult and injury.


    Many Africans for instance, accuse America for contributory and supportive involvement in the Apartheid reality of the racist era of South Africa. In their calculations, the racist enclave would not have lasted so long but for America’s failure to intervene with a view to effecting its collapse. Such contentions fly in the face of commonsensical truth. Nobody seems to remember that but for America, apartheid may well be thriving today quite oblivious to the half – hearted opposition of the so-called frontline states and such useless efforts as they were willing to expend on its overthrow. American sanctions and opposition to Apartheid were not merely the last straw to break the armour-plated back of the racist superstructure but constituted the all important summation of the entire anti – Apartheid project of concerned parties. It was under American leadership that the anti – Apartheid effort acquired the teeth necessary to the attainment and achievement of its salvivic goal, with American instrumentality denominating the eventual and irreversible dethronement of that accursed epoch. Without that crucial involvement, all the filibustering hypocrisy of African leaders, many of whom led similarly inhuman regimes and meted out comparably genocidal treatment on their compatriots, would have been miserably unresourceful and doomed to utter impotence. Not even the valiance and dogged indestructibility of the African National Congress and similar organizations would have yielded fruit. Even they were eventually surprised at the free fall of the mountain of Apartheid with whose seeming immovability, they had been constrained to contend having been ineffectually provisioned by their lame-duck and kid – gloved front line allies.


    Even worse are anti – American currents nourished from the hangover of the era of transatlantic slavery. The positions of a legion of such rabble-rousers anchor their inconsistencies upon a contrived edifice of falsehood built upon a vast exchequer of deliberately narrow-minded hypocrisy. We may ask, who sold the slaves in the first place? Their African brothers did – and they did this, the commercialization of the flesh and blood of their kit and kin from utterly unbelievable standpoints.

    In the era of that infamous traffic, the conventional wisdom amongst the selling societies of the African realm was that their brethren whose hides they so enthusiastically sold were cannibalized by the Euro – American buying market. Nevertheless, these dysfunctional breed sustained the conversion of their countrymen into articles of trade upon the value of such worthless remuneration as gunpowder, alcohol and textiles.

    Even more disheartening of course, is the fictional brotherhood between Africans and Arabs, which certain interests have sought to snatch from thin air. Everyone conveniently forgets the horrible Arabic role in The Slave Trade, an amnesia all manner of questionable Arabic interests have exploited historically. Thus one often encounters Arabic anti-Americans painting the absurd mosaic of a united Africa and The Middle East fighting the ridiculous fiction of American and Western oppression. An example was the Palestinian Liberation Organisation’s romance with the Ugandan dictator Idia Amin Dada during the Israeli hostage crisis.

    Everyone had conveniently forgotten that an African – Arabic brotherhood was entirely imaginative, lacking all particulars of factuality and history. No one bothered to remember that The Arabs themselves had been rabidly parasitic participants in The Slave Trade on the East Coast of Africa, where the most unrelentingly brutish, barbaric and racist dimensions of the entire trade became crystalised. While all slave dealers and slavers were hopelessly inhuman, their Arab colleagues on The East African Coast took the brutality of that accursed traffic to its most hellish and anti-social conclusions. In their pre – historic commitment to the commercialization of other men, they processed their avaricious pre-occupations into unprecedented fanatical heights of racist economics and religious dogma. Even today, Saudi Arabia of the Mecca of the Arabs, alongside such backwaters as Sudan, Mauritania, Morocco, Syria, Yemen and a few others, remain the only states in the modern world where institutionalized inheritable slavery, is still practiced and enforced at law. And, who are their slaves? Well, the same black Africans they wish a brotherhood with. The same black Africans who are ever quick to express solidarity with Arabs whenever America or the West feeds one or more of their number, their just deserts on account of trademark terrorist excesses. Why do men embrace this amnesia, this self – insulting forgetfulness? Envy.

    We do not begrudge the Arabs their ancestors role in The Slave Trade because present day Arabs have nothing we can envy to inspire hatred. We do not hate present day Arabs for their continuing enslavement of black Africans because they have nothing that we want and can’t have. And, of course, because we are messed up, for it is messed up to find any reason to envy or to predicate amnesia upon envy. America thus unravels as the world’s favourite scapegoat because she is everything we would die to be and can’t seem to live to become.


    More calamitous of course are the denials of the meed of glory to which belong the immortal significance of crucial British and American abolitionist exploits. The British, pioneers in this eternally noble area, led a global naval onslaught upon The Slave Trade which ensured a depression on the economics of servitude. The high seas, the medium of that inhuman traffic, became, thanks to British efforts, the watery grave of an industry in which African interests cultivatedly maintained major stakes. The Americans themselves took the anti – slavery crusade to its next logical level. Here, abolitionist passions were soon to inscribe a battle line across a land in which slavery possessed seemingly insurmountable particulars. Indeed, it came to pass that in the America where the African flanks of the anti – American army most resourcefully locates its racist targets in white Americanness, whites fought, spilt the blood of fellow whites and sacrificed their own lives in the effort to emancipate Africans.

    The totally untenable nonsense is nevertheless advanced to the effect that these abolitionist achievements were inspired by interests not necessarily rooted in moral considerations. Such narrow-mindedly disreputable positions do not deserve even a modicum of attention in the light of the profoundness with which they are far removed from all reality. Nevertheless, even if their validity is admitted, the moral high ground remains the exclusive fief of the Anglo – American abolitionist effort. Where the Africans had sold their fellow Africans, sacrificing all their liberties and dignity on the altar of shameful lucre, the British and the Americans had by war and sacrifice, rescued these victims of historical fratricide. No continental African ever liberated an enslaved African. The entirety of the African dimension of The Slave Trade was thus a monument to unrelenting infamy. He sold his brothers to those he was sure would eat them. These victims were rescued from the misery of slavery to which their kit and kin were dedicated contributors, by those who lacked any similar reasons of familiarity to compel them to such salvivic undertakings. That they effected the deconstruction of the culture of slavery is noble, regardless of whatever colourations of intent their ungrateful detractors ascribe to their immortal feat.

    Racism of course, is not an American invention, nor is it a social phenomenon whose occurrence is exclusively American or Western. It is a worldwide feature of human society and reaches its zenith in non – American environs where all its most nightmarish credentials arise. What particulars of American racism compares to the racist record of Germany, Spain or Rwanda? Can we indeed point to America as more racially deplorable than say Nigeria is ethnically disastrous?

    All indices of racial phenomena would markedly favour America as the world leader in intergrational achievement and correctional success. Where else in this world, for instance, would a city be denied Federal funds because it lacks at least a black resident? In contrast, in Nigeria for instance, Kano, a state whose only claim to distinction probably resides in the astronomity of its ethno-religious extremism, happens to be the most rewarded component of the Nigerian pseudo – federation. What is the Nigerian equivalent of the civil rights reforms? Where may the Nigerian ethno – intergrational effort, which magnitudinally corresponds to the Emancipation Declaration and its consequences be found?

    Which Nigerian sacrifice, if any, could compare with the overwhelming altruism of the American Civil War? Indeed, what similarities of nobility of intention could ever possibly be discovered to harmonize the raison deter of the Nigerian Civil War with the celebrated pedigree of its American counterpart? How therefore, could any Nigerian ever assume a standpoint of validity to wax pontifical on questions of American defects?


    Those who would see nothing tenable in American reality are those almost always least morally disqualified to do so. The veracity of this submission can be tested by means of a myriad of procedures all of which I have found to return similar results. Some of these findings reveal moral significances so objectionable, as to ascribe stupefying hypocrisy to the vast majority of anti-American interests.

    One anti-American prophet of my acquaintance, for instance, had left his native Nigeria to America where he became a citizen, a status he admitted he sought and retains for entirely self-centered reasons of financial significance. He had worked for the American government, been around the place, and lived “The Dream”. In short he had done well for himself, having been a perfect specimen of the economic refugee who fled his multifariously dislocated homeland into the salvivic succour of American opportunities.

    Yet this personification of ingratitude saw nothing good in America wherefore could find not even a word in praise or defense of the land of his sustenance and regeneration. The venom with which he waxed anti – American retained the power of religious fervour and no anti – American complaint was too petty for such opprobrium as his envy inspired. This was a man who had fled Nigeria in the period of the post-oil boom depression, a depression he and similar others had purchased for their less fortunate compatriots with the price of corruption, misrule and official clumsiness, and relocated to America with the peanuts leftover from his squandered loot. He showed up in Nigeria recently and had only curses for the land of his refuge. Yet this is the species of sub-humanity the unimaginative State Department and its incompetent embassies all over the world routinely grant entry visas into the U.S. Why, this thorough blood sucker once related to me how upon 9/11, he along with certain equally parasitic economic refugees of his ilk, found occasion to sympathies with their American hosts only to applaud the terrorists when American backs were turned. Yet this same bastard was the freak the State Department had awarded a visa, allowed into America and what’s more, had become – you guessed right – a citizen. God help America!

    Such parasites, viruses given to the shamelessness of opportunism and ingratitude, find in America, the perfect paradise for the cultivation of their ingratitude. Needless to say, as with all such morally dislocated and intellectually inadequate men, our bloodsucker above disclosed a self-contradiction, gargantuan in its pathetic inelegance, for his complaints were not exclusive to America; he equally saved the acid of his tongue for the wastes of his Nigerian origins. Yet helplessly, everything he concluded was wrong with Nigeria, was wrong only by comparing the same with American situations. Unwittingly, though perfectly proper to such witless positions, he had acknowledged so much that was right, positive and commendable in American phenomena in acknowledging to the same degree, so much as was wrong, negative and deplorable in Nigeria. I dare anyone to construct a test out of the particulars of this episode. The results always merely demonstrate the disastrousness of envious dispositions. The freak of envy, envies what he does not have and fears he may never come to have. It is immaterial to his wasted mind that his condition and disability are self-induced. He is ever ready to blame them on the most successful other in his quest for a scapegoat. The anti – American therefore, is ultimately anti – American simply because he is not American.


    America has been a success story, which achievement arises from its commitment to respectable standards of foreign behaviour. It is ultimately a democracy whose external motives and undertakings must of necessity incorporate a reflection of the popular will. It must of course, equally record all the natural defects of the inadequacies of officialdom as well as every error of judgment deriving therefrom. This cannot be helped. What however, can and must be helped are the responsive adumbration of ethos, and the imaginative packaging foreign policy management.

    In this regard, The State Department has been a colossal failure, having stupefyingly failed to respond to crystal clear dangers historically and presently afflicting American foreign policy. Its embassies all over the world continue to grant all manner of visa categories to a legion of America-haters with predictable results. Lacking or probably disdaining any imaginativeness in its visa and immigration policies, these embassies have historically failed to accommodate a host of pro-American elements justifiably seeking the American Dream, while extending the red carpet to a flood of the most rabidly parasitic, opportunistic and anti-Americanist elements. This I hasten to submit is tantamount to criminal negligence disclosing treasonable significance.

    The State Department and American Embassies all over the world require an immediate overhauling of work ethic in order to meet the challenges of an increasingly dangerous and anti-American world. The solution to attitudes anti-American will not be found in the laughable strategies which have historically come to naught. The solution resides in identifying pro-American elements and platforms in other countries and projecting same to the undoing of the apostles of anti-Americanism. As for defense policy, it must come to incorporate an unrelenting, unsparing and maximum cutting-edge bite, whose dimensions reduce even the most brazen and consequential anti-American attack to a comparative status of hopelessly puny significance.


    We are all of us imperfect. There is good and evil present in us all. It is not as if America is some perfect society entirely differentiated from the rest of us. There is no such society on our planet. Perfection is the exclusive preserve of Heaven, God’s neighborhood, and only when we are there shall we find the utopia Marx, Engels and their narrow minded brethren both misconceived and hopelessly sought to create. ‘’The poor will always be with you.’’ And, they have always been with us. Imperfection too, has and will always be with us. The challenge is to forever fight poverty and imperfection and no where has that fight been more perfectly fought than in America. It has been said that America always acts in self interest. The historical record however, overwhelmingly impeaches this. But, even if this were admitted, the question should equally be asked: ‘’What country is that upon The Earth which, does not act in self interest?’’ I submit that there is none – absolutely none. In fact, if indeed it was possible for any countries to be found that have on occasion acted upon motives other than the self centered, or could be identified, which from time to time have embraced and continue to embrace the exceptions to the self-centeredness rule, processing their external calculations upon altruistic premises, The United States of America and The United Kingdom of Great Britain will unquestionably lead the pack. Besides they equally have been the two countries in the world that have been the least oppressive, predatory, belligerent, and most benevolent from the point of view of their foreign conduct against the background of the power they’ve possessed and currently possess. It is therefore only envy that motivates those who lament the present era of the single superpower. Imagine if the current military profile of America were for instance possessed by say, The Iraq of Saddam Hussein, The Uganda of Idi Amin Dada, The Cambodia of Pol Pot or indeed The Nigeria of Sani Abacha. Your guess is as good as mine – if envy has not wasted your mind that is. Against the backdrop of their power, America and Britain would easily justifiably qualify as the most civilized and peaceable nations in the world both historically and contemporarily. What other country could we confidently point to in our world that would have America’s power and would not like Hitler’s Germany or Hirohito’s Japan lay waste all they came across?

    America is imperfect – like our own countries are all imperfect. To the extent that we are perfect, if it is possible to admit this, is she also – as a matter of fact, that is – perfect. If however, we are to engage ourselves in constructing hierarchies in the delicate business of comparing these perfections, she would, like it or not, outclass us all.


    I address this article not as an offer to the whole world nor as an appeal to the morass of human interests. It is strictly intended for the aggregate of positions and platforms of intellectually astute and morally respectable worldviews. I realize that my opinions are and will remain heretical to a host of the permanently and willfully retrogressive with whom I cannot be bothered. I also concede that a cross section of pro-Americans both within and beyond the United States will inevitably feel insulted by and insufferably uncomfortable with my unfamiliar methods and the admittedly novel submissions deriving therefrom. Not even for this class do I have any apologies whatsoever, for all my submissions are easily verifiable. The ubiquitous facts of history bear them out. Indeed, my patience with the shameful disposition of such disorderly pro-American interests is even shorter than the accommodation with which I shall continue to countenance all anti – American behaviour, an accommodation remarkable only in its inexistence.

    My call therefore is distinctly and entirely to the brethren of reason and human progress. I am unabashedly pro – American and religiously so. My faith in this regard is a scientifically constructed adumbration erected upon ubiquitous historical and contemporary phenomena. I submit that the “American Dream” if infused with those non-American inputs that it presently lacks, will when realized on worldwide terms, prove to be the only sustainable path to progress and supra – existential survival for humanity.

    I therefore enjoin all men of international fellowship to subject my premises to open minded validation and progressionally engineer their conclusions into immediate imperatives of achievable exploits for the world at large. To all true Americans, I should like to say that America is theirs, and only in an especial sense, ours as well, and this, in the light of the significance its special destiny has for the destiny of the international aggregate of our planet. Ultimately however, it remains squarely entirely and exclusively their America. That non – Americans should share in the nourishment, consolidation, expansion and profit of the “American Dream” as well as in its realization at the level of a new world order, is a gratuitous invitation. That the Americans themselves must provision, guard, protect and midwife their dream to its logical conclusions is, on the other hand, an inescapable obligation.

    Finally, I welcome and invite reactions to this platform, except of course, from the vermin of anti – Americanism, in whose stereotypically appointed fallacies, I have no interest of an interactive character. They should do well to restrict their anti – human perspectives within the confines of their demented worldview from which it may, in hopeless desperation, venture from time to time into circulation amongst others of similar mental impoverishment. Their views and its energies will of course, sooner than later bring them to all their fitting outcomes and every consequence proper to the path of infamy they freely chose.

    The ship of American destiny will sail forever to the destination of world destiny. Those who predict the fall of America, only actually, predict the fall of the world. It is not common sense, contrary to what many hold, that as The Mongol Empire, The Alexanderian Empire, The Roman Empire, The British Empire, and sundry others all rose and fell, so too has The United States risen and will surely fall. The aforesaid empires did not fall because they had risen. Empires do not fall because they once rose. Surely such an idea is crap! The aforesaid empires fell because they failed to keep standing. It is not necessary to fall because you have risen. It is only necessary to fall because you fail to keep standing. Besides, these empires were essentially ethnocentric, having fundamentally risen out of an ethnic core, which core, having been further amplified at the level of empire created such internal deterioration and consequent external reaction as to seal their fate for ill. America, as we have seen earlier on, is the unique creation of the totality of ethnic man, a process not duplicated anywhere else on our planet. Its destiny cannot in any wise duplicate the fate of the aforesaid empires of yesteryears. If it falls at all, its fall would only serve to predict and elicit the fall of the rest of us. And, since we cannot all fall together, America will never fall. Take it or leave it. Like it or not.

    Those who therefore predict the fall of America are the hopelessly illogical, whose daily bread are the fallacies of half- education and the pseudo-knowledge of envy. This brood of anti-humanity must be weeded out of significance from all national and international spheres of influence. When the drama of the future unfolds and its history is written, this must become the fate of all the jeopardy with which every anti – American entity has perverted the path of the cosmic American journey and our share in the destination of that progression. The time of God will tell. Since I have faith that in the end good must prevail over evil, I make bold to say: “God bless America!”





  4. Sola Olanrewaju says:

    From infancy you have known the relative truth which has liberated you…

Comments are closed.