Afghanistan: Fred Reed Has Deja Vu All Over Again

Despair in the Empire of Graveyards

Or Gilbert and Sullivan Come to Afghanistan, Depending on Your Perspective

Saigon Evacuation, 1975. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Forty-six years ago in a previous comedy I was in Saigon, recently having been evacuated from Phnom Penh in an Air America—CIA—Caribou carrying, in addition to me, several ARVN junior officers and perhaps a dozen BUFEs (Big Ugly Elephants, the ceramic pachyderms much beloved of GIs). America had already embarked on its currently standard policy of forcing small countries into wars and then leaving them in the lurch. In Cambodia this led to the reign of Pol Pot, the ghastly torture operation at Toul Sleng, and a million or so dead. In the unending fight for democracy, casualties are inevitable.

At the time Saigon was tense because Ban Me Thuot had fallen and the NVA roared down Route One toward Saigon. To anyone with the brains of a doorknob, the American adventure in Vietnam was coming to an end, but the embassy was studiedly unconcerned. Embassies do not have the brains of a doorknob, but are keenly aware of public relations. Acknowledging the inescapable is not their way. As usual, Washington would rather lie than breathe, and did. As in Cambodia, so in Nam, and so later in Afghanistan.

Apparently a genius at State realized that a lot of gringo expats lived in Nam—the number six thousand comes to mind, but may be wrong—and that six thousand hostages taken when Saigon fell would be bad PR. So the embassy in Kabul—Saigon, I meant to say, Saigon—quietly announced that expats could fly out on military aircraft from Ton Son Nhut. They didn’t, or at least many didn’t. The NVA continued its rush toward Saigon.

The expats didn’t fly out because they had Vietnamese wives and families and were not going to leave them, period. These wives may not have had the trappings of pieces of paper and stamps and maybe snippets of ribbon. These things do not seem important in Asian war zones. But the expats regarded them as wives. Period. The family went, or nobody did. Period.

The embassy didn’t understand this because embassies are staffed by people from Princeton with names like Derek who wear pink shirts and don’t know where they are. The ambassador is usually a political appointee being rewarded for campaign contributions and probably doesn’t speak the language as few gringos spikka da Pushto or Vietnamese or Farsi or Khmer. For example, nobody at all in the embassy in Cambodia spoke Khmer. The rank and file of State are better suited to a high-end Rotarian barbecue than a Third World city teeming with strange people in funny clothes eating God knows what horrible things in winding frightening alleys. And so the State people could not understand why an American would marry one “of them,” as in the embassy I once heard a gringa put it. It was a good question. Why would a man marry a pretty, sleek, smart, self-reliant woman who wanted family and children? It was a great mystery.

The Taliban—NVA, I mean–NVA kept coming closer. A PR disaster loomed.

Meanwhile the PR apparatus insisted that the sky wasn’t really falling even as it did and no, no, no the US had not gotten its sit-down royally kicked by a ratpack of rice-propelled paddy maggots, as GIs described the opposition. Many in government seemed to believe this. This was an early instance, to be repeated in another part of Asia, of inventing a fairyland world and then trying to move into it.

Finally State faced reality, a novel concept. It allowed quietly that expats and their families could fly out, military. It was getting late, but better than nothing.

The comedic value of this goat rope grew, becoming more amusing by the hour. I was trying to get a young Vietnamese woman out as she had worked for the embassy and we suspected things might not go well with her under the NVA. Call her Linda. Linda and I took the bus to Tan Son Nhut. The Viet gate guards gave her a hard time, envying her for getting out while they could not, but we got in. I was going to tell the State people that we were married but that while I was in Can Tho, by then in VC hands, see, the marriage papers had slipped from my carrying case. This was obvious BS, but I guessed that if I made a huge issue of it they would bend rather than get in a megillah with a reporter, no matter how unimportant.

We found ourselves in a long line of expats with their families leading to the door of a Quonset hut, inside of which a State official was checking papers. Some of the expats had around them what appeared to be small villages of in-laws, brothers of wives, sisters, everything but the family dog. An official with a bull horn told us to write down all their names and the relationships on clipboards being passed around. Tran Thi Tuyet Lan, sister, for example.

Then a genius at the embassy or Foggy Bottom realized that something resembling a third of Viet Nam was about to come out, listed as in-laws. Policy changed, at least in Washington which was as usual blankly ignorant of reality on the ground. At Tan Son Nhut this meant telling men that they had to leave parts of their families behind, which they weren’t going to do. This would not look good above the fold in the Washington Post. Dozens of Americans taken captive because the State Department would not let their families out.” All was confusion because the US had spent years telling itself that the disaster couldn’t happen. What to do?

American ingenuity kicked in. At the Quonset hut the guy with the bullhorn announced, “From now on, all mothers-in-law are mothers, all brothers-in-law are brothers. Change your forms.” All along the line, magic markers went through “in-law.” This meant that some women had two mothers, but this under the circumstances seemed a minor biological quibble. The guy with the bull horn was at most three feet from the guy in the Quonset hut who was certifying papers as valid. He solemnly looked at the papers with their strike-through’s, , certified them as correct, and that was that. A field expedient.

Hours and hours went by. Night came. Tempers frayed. Nobody seemed to have planned how actually to get these people out. Nobody seemed to have planned anything. Finally a 130 howled in. This was the Lockheed C-130 Hercules, a four-engine turboprop cargo bird and a magnificent plane. It taxied over. The engines did not shut down. The prop wash was strong and hot. The tail ramp dropped. The waiting mob were rushed aboard without ceremony. There were no seats in the dark cavern of the fuselage. That would have required planning, which no one in Washington had thought of. The air reeked of burned aviation kerosene. We squatted on the cargo deck while an Air Force guy with a bullhorn warned, “Keep the kids’ hands out of the expansion slots, you’ll lose them.”

The real-world Air Force didn’t have people named Derek in pink shirts and if you told it all rules off, get the job done, it did. Ramp up, fast taxi, takeoff run, tight corkscrewing climb with the engines running at power I didn’t know they had. The NVA and VC were now very close due to incompetent planning (have I mentioned incompetent planning?) and might have SAM-7s so it wasn’t a good idea to fly over territory they now controlled. Cutting and running from a stupid war run by generals as clueless as they were careerist, with Saigon spinning below, seen through open doors amid tightly packed peasants going they had little idea where. Days later when we got to San Fran on a chartered airliner, hundreds of refugees were dumped into the main concourse, no immigrations, customs, or paperwork.

And now we have done it all over again in Kabul, complete with helicopters over the embassy and a panicked evacuation undertaken way too late and sudden concern for turncoat Afghans who made the mistake of working for the US. There is talk of importing 20,000 Afghan refugees to America. I find it amusing that many conservatives, who thought the war was peaches because it was about democracy and niceness and American values, now object to importing people their dimwitted enthusiasms put in line to be killed. Use and discard. Countries and people.

There was the now-traditional underestimation of the speed of the insurgent advance, the predictable deprecation of the “good” Afghans for not fighting with sufficient enthusiasm for the Empire: If they didn’t care enough to defend their country, Biden would say with earnest cluelessness, what could we do?”

So why did this happen? Why another rush to the exit as the world laughs? Which the world is doing. In a sentence, because if you do something stupid and it doesn’t work, it probably won’t work when you do it again.

The psychological explanation is slightly more complex. Vietnam is a good example. America invaded a country of another race, utterly different culture, practicing religions GIs had never heard of, speaking a language virtually no Americans spoke, a country exceedingly sick of being invaded by foreigners, most of them white. in Afghanistan the designated evil was terrorism, in in Viet Nam communism, but the choice of evils doesn’t matter. You have to tell the rubes at home something noble sounding.

Then the Americans did as they always do, training the ARVN, the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, to fight the communists to impose democracy, which the Viets had not asked them to do. But when you ask some Viets (Bodes, Laos, Iraqis, Afghans) to fight other Viets (Bodes, etc.) to kill their own people for the benefit of the invaders, they are not greatly charmed. With a predictability that makes sunrise seem chancy, they desert, fight lackadaisically, with officers charging the US pay for soldiers who do not exist, and probably go over to the other side en masse when the collapse comes. Which latter the Afghan army just did. Duh, as the kids say.

The speed of the Taliban advance took Americans by surprise because officers are liars and had been hiding the deplorable state of the “Afghan” army, its numbers, morale, degree of training, and phenomenal rates of desertion. Often the American officer corps thinks that if it can just have a little more time, they can win, so lying is a part of the war effort. Biden bought into this, announcing that the Afghan army vastly outnumbered the Taliban and was better armed and trained and the insurgents couldn’t possibly do what they proceeded to do.

Another reason is that the American style of war recruits its enemies. Soldiers are not the Boy Scout defenders of civilization that so many like to imagine. They kill a lot of civilians, many tens of thousands in the bombing of cities such as Baghdad and Hanoi. Ground troops come to detest the natives whom they designate gooks, zipperheads, sand niggers, camel jockeys, and the like. They commit war crimes that, when discovered, are called “isolated incidents,” when in fact they are common.

Fragmentation bombs produce such things as a little girl crying with her belly torn open and intestines falling out while her mother goes stark raving mad watching her daughter bleed to death and she can do nothing about it. But it is for democracy and American values, and anyway the ragheads breed like flies, and besides, CNN won’t air it. Today drone strikes hit weddings and other gatherings. When you kill people in a village, the young men join the insurgents, wanting revenge. When a few thousands were killed in Nine-Eleven, Americans exploded in rage. Three thousand is a small fraction of the numbers killed in, say, the attack on Baghdad. The Iraqi soldiers killed in a hopeless attempt to defeat the Americans were sons, fathers, husbands, brothers of other Iraqis. How much love do we think it engendered in Iraqis? This seems not to occur to Washington.

Militaries at bottom are amoral. Afghans know of the torture operations at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Americans seem to dismiss such things as minor. They are not. Afghans seeing Moslems lying in pools of blood at Abu Ghraib, or being paraded around naked in hoods, are going to want to kill someone. Guess who.

American wars last a long time because no one has an incentive to end them. American casualties are low, especially now with the killing mostly done from the air against peasants with no defenses. No important American ever gets killed. American wars are all class wars, with the dying being done by blue-collar suckers from Kansas or the deep South, not by Bush II, Hillary, the other Clinton, Bolton, Bannon, Obama, Blinken, Biden, Cheney, Kamala, Trump, and the rest of those not required to fight. The US public has little idea of what goes on in its wars because the corporate media hide them. the Pentagon having learned that the media are their worst enemy, not the Taliban. It would not surprise me if one unfettered camera crew, filming the corpses and mutilated children and devastation, could force an end to such a war.

Americans are not heartless but calculatedly uninformed. Wars are also extremely profitable for those who provide the bombs, fuel, vehicles, and so on. If the US loses a war, the contracts stop, and equally if it wins. Keeping it going for decades provides a steady revenue stream. What’s not to like?

Finally, or as much as I am going to worry about, there is the 1955 Syndrome, the engrained belief that America is all powerful. This is arrogance and self-delusion. In the Pentagon you encounter a mandatory can-do attitude a belief that the US military is indomitable, the best trained, armed, and led force in this or any nearby galaxy. In one sense this is necessary: You can’t tell the Marines that they are mediocre light infantry or sailors that their aircraft are rapidly obsolescing, their ships sitting ducks in a changing military world, and that the whole military enterprise is rotted by social engineering, profiteering, and careerism.

But look around: The US has failed to intimidate North Korea, chase the Chinese out of its islands in the South China Sea, retrieve the Crimea from Russia, can’t intimidate Iran, just got run out of Afghanistan, remains mired in Iraq and Syria, failed to block Nordstream II despite a desperate effort, and couldn’t keep Turkey from buying the S-400. The Pentagon plans for the wars it wants to fight, not the wars it does fight. The most dangerous weapons of the modern world are not nukes, but the Ak-47, the RPG, and the IED. Figure it out.

And now the US comes home, leaving Afghanistan in ruins for decades. Use and discard.

From UNZ, here.

The Chazon Ish on *Stringency* in Fostering Love and Peace

Real Rabbis Balance with a Careful Measure

One of the 613 mitzvos is to follow the gezeiros and takanos of Chazal (rabbinic prohibitions and enactments), the purpose of which are to safeguard the other 612 mitzvos. This is not to be confused with the declarations of so-called “leading rabbis” reported in the media, which carry no halachic weight. Contemporary rabbis are authorized only to clarify the Torah of ancient times, not to turn traditional norms on their head or establish new gezeiros and takanos that would carry biblical force.

Chazal distinguished themselves in many ways from contemporary rabbis who presume to follow in their footsteps. Chazal were paragons of integrity, who were concerned with getting it right, not winning an argument. The Gemara has many examples of Talmudic sages retracting their opinion in light of a strong proof to the contrary. Teachers would defer to superior arguments from their students, and even ordinary people who were not scholars are recorded for posterity for making a valuable argument in the presence of the greatest sages.

In fact, our Talmudic sages would resolve challenges against their opponent in a disagreement. They were not really on different sides, after all; they were all pious, God-fearing people on the side of truth.

This is why their words will forever be studied and revered by all Torah-observant Jews. This is why the rulings of these saintly rabbis guide every aspect of our lives thousands of years later, while the decrees of mighty kings and governments are gone and forgotten with the changing of the guard. As Chazal themselves taught in Pirkei Avos (5:17), only a disagreement that is for the sake of heaven (not one’s ego or an ulterior motive) will endure with respect for both sides.

One of the main hallmarks of these true rabbis, in contrast to contemporary scholars who carry the title, is careful consideration of all the ramifications of a “rabbinic intervention”. While learning a digest of the laws of Shemitta in preparation for the new year I came across a teaching from the Chazon Ish (12:9) that illustrates this wonderfully.

Chazal prohibited lending a farm instrument to an am ha’aretz (a person who is unschooled or careless about halacha) during Shemitta, since he would certainly use it for forbidden work. This would violate the Torah commandment of lifnei iver, placing an obstacle before a blind person.

However, if the instrument is normally used for permitted work as well, in which case it is not certain that the am ha’aretz intends to use it for forbidden work, one is allowed to lend it to him. This is despite the fact that it is still likely that he will use it for forbidden work; as long as there is a reasonable doubt, one can lend it to him.

As the Chazon Ish writes, this is because if one is stringent in this case, there will be an “obstacle” of taking away chesed and darchei shalom (kindness and the ways of peace). In addition, it would certainly cause an increase in hatred and strife, and many other prohibitions, which are not lighter than the prohibition we are seeking to prevent. Chazal weighed the pros and cons, and prohibited lending an instrument only when it would lead to a definite sin, but did not penalize an am ha’aretz more than that. (He cites another example from Mo’ed Katan 17A, where Chazal prohibited a parent to strike a grown child because the risk of the child striking the parent in return – a potentially capital crime – is not worth the disciplinary benefits.) This is the straight and balanced way.

Compare this painstaking calculation of benefits versus risks with the wild pronouncements of “rabbis” and other pundits in our time. They have decided (or, to be precise, had it decided for them) that most everyone must become a pin cushion for pharmaceutical companies, and that people must be tortured in increasingly cruel ways until they “voluntarily” surrender. The collateral damage of these policies is occasionally mentioned as an afterthought, only to pretend that these ramifications were anything more than a public relations nuisance for those making the policies.

In simple terms, they don’t care. At all.

This bulldozer approach has filtered into the minds of those who acquiesced to their tormentors and became little tormentors as well. First they accepted that the injections were worth the risk. Then they accepted that the risks are not even consequential. Then they accepted that anyone who disagrees is evil, the cause of all our suffering, and no punishment is too great for them. There are no brakes, no boundaries, no limits. It is a game of can-you-top-this, and we’re fast reaching the point of anything goes.

It is no surprise that much of the world population has bought into this, because much of the world has no objective standard of good and evil, no clear boundaries and limits for anything they believe to be “good”. What is most tragic is that so many Jews who appear to be devoted to the Torah have completely lost their bearings. They are egged on by anti-Torah political figures (some of whom pretend to be “religious”) and phony rabbis who work for the establishment and make increasingly unhinged proclamations with each passing day.

Shemitta is a very serious mitzvah. According to Chazal, one of the primary reasons the Jews were first exiled is because they did not observe Shemitta. It would be entirely understandable for Chazal to forbid lending anything to an am ha’aretz that could conceivably be used for prohibited work, in order to be most stringent with Shemitta. Instead, they prohibited only that which would definitely be used for sin, and chose to be stringent about fostering kindness and peace between relatives, friends, and neighbors.

It would be natural for one to be concerned about his am ha’aretz neighbor working the land during Shemitta, increasing the sins of the nation, and potentially causing great harm to society. It would be easy to justify ostracizing such people, or forcing them to live under constant surveillance, or locking them down in their homes for the entire year, or taking them away to camps to make absolutely sure they didn’t violate Shemitta. It would be for the greater good, to protect them and us from violating Shemitta and incurring God’s wrath.

Unlike the phony rabbis of today, Chazal were not unhinged maniacs. They intervened to prevent abetting someone in a definite prohibition, and otherwise encouraged people to continue to be good friends and neighbors. They recognized that intervening more than that would create strife, jeopardize the fragile foundations of society, lead to more and greater sins, and cause far more harm than good.

This is the Torah way. Every Jew who has even a marginal Torah education knows this. It is incumbent upon every such Jew to separate himself from the poisonous, anti-God approach of the hysterical envelope-pushers and recalibrate his mind with true Torah. Step back, take a deep breath, and look at what people have become. This is not the Torah way, and it needs to stop now.

Better we all die from a virus than we live as hyperemotional savages.

As we approach Rosh Hashana and Shemitta, let us clear our minds of the noise, the fear, the propaganda, and the wild declarations from people without boundaries or limits. They do not speak in the name of Torah, and we should not let them poison our minds. Let every Jew reconnect to the Torah, reconnect to Hashem, banish the fear, and foster only friendly relations with those around us. Let us set a proper example to the rest of the world, through the carefully balanced ways of Chazal, and become deserving of the redemption this coming Shemitta.

__________________________

https://chananyaweissman.com/

Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid

Quoting Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (published posthumously, on Ki Teitse):

If we think less of a person because of the colour of their skin, we are repeating the sin of Aaron and Miriam – “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman” (Num. 12:1). There are midrashic interpretations that read this passage differently, but the plain sense is that they looked down on Moses’ wife because, like Cushite women generally, she had dark skin, making this one of the first recorded instances of colour prejudice. For this sin Miriam was struck with leprosy.

Instead we should remember the lovely line from Song of Songs: “I am black but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Kedar, like the curtains of Solomon. Do not stare at me because I am dark, because the sun has looked upon me” (Song of Songs 1:5).

End quote.

רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר אין אומר בקרו גמל בקרו חזיר אלא בקרו טלה

הטבע – אם תענה אותו, הוא יודה בכל

צוות האתר

בחברה המודרנית יש הרבה חוקים נגד התעללות וניצול, אסור להתעלל בקטינים ובחסרי ישע, אסור לנצל סמכות, אסור אפילו להשחית מקרקעים, מטורפי ה’קיימות’ אוסרים גם לפגוע בכל מיני דברים שלא ברור שהם קיימים בכלל, ורק תחום אחד פרוץ לחלוטין, מין בלתי מוגן, שכל אחד יכול להתעלל בו, לנצל אותו, להשחית את פניו, ואין פוצה פה ומצפצף!

זה הזן של הישויות המופשטות, למשל המיסטיקה, אין איסור להתעלל בה, אין איסור להשתמש בה לניצול אחרים. אם בבא משודרג דורש סכום כל שהוא כדי להסיר כישופים, זו זכותו. המחוקק סומך על האזרח האינטלגנט, שאם הוא בוחר להשתמש בשירותיהם של מיסטיקנים, הוא גם ידע להבדיל בין השרלטנים הגדולים לבין הקטנים.

אבל מה אם פרופסור לפיזיקה מתנהג כך?

כן, עוד מישהו יצא נורא מסכן, המדע. מתעללים בו, מנצלים אותו. ואין לו איך להתגונן.

הנה, רק עכשיו יצא הבטאון המדעי המכובד נייצ’ר, בקריאה כי ‘הנזק שגרם טראמפ למדע כמעט בלתי הפיך’, נשמע כמו אויויו, נו באמת. מערכת מדעית שמתנהלת כמו שצריך, לא יכולה להיפגע ע”י פוליטיקאי, גם אם הוא מאד ירצה. מה שנפגע, הוא המערכת של ניצול המדע, החוצפה הבלתי נסבלת של מיעוט קולני להתעלל במדע, לנצל אותו, לנכס אותו, ובכך לפגוע במפעל המדעי ובאמון של האנושות בו.

“הטבע – אם תענה אותו, הוא יודה בכל”, אמר איש מדע מפורסם, כשנתקל באיזה מאמר שמתעקש לאשש תיאוריה מטופשת, בעזרת ריבוי גרפים ומספרים. אז כן, מענים את המדע, גורמים לו להודות בכל מיני דברים, ואחר כך מתלוננים שהמדע יושב לו בנישה שפוליטיקאי יכול להתערב. אם תביא את המדע לפוליטיקה – הוא יתנהג כחבר כנסת. בכנסת (גם בקונגרס) דברים מתקבלים בעזרת לוביסטים, צעקות, ובסוף הצבעות. וכך הם גם מתבטלים, מה שמושג באמצעות רצונות ואינטרסים, גם יקרוס באותה דרך. מה לזה ולמדע?

והנה פרופ’ שנרב מכובדינו מלמד אותנו איך להתייחס לניצול המדע ע”י אנשי מדע מפורסמים:

בשנת 1938 פרסם העתון המדעי רב היוקרה Nature את מאמרו של פיסיקאי גרמני מוביל, חתן פרס נובל מכובד, יוהנס שטארק. במאמר זה לא חלק שטארק עם שומעיו את תגליותיו החדשות בקשר לקרני קתודה או להשפעת השדה החשמלי על הספקטרום של אטום המימן. במקום זאת הוא ייחד את מאמרו לשאלות של “מדיניות מדעית”, כלומר לאפנים השונים בהם פועלים פיסיקאים, לתפיסותיהם השונות את מטרת המחקר שלהם וכדומה.

החלוקה הבסיסית אותה מכר שטארק היתה בין מה שהוא כינה “מדע פרגמטי” לבין דרך אותה הוא הגדיר “מדע דוגמטי”. מבחינתו של איש המדע הפרגמטי, טוען שטארק, הפיסיקה מתחילה ונגמרת בניסוי, והמדד האולטימטיבי של הבנה תיאורטית הוא התאמתה לניסוי. מדענים דוגמטיים, לעומת זאת, מתייחסים בראש ובראשונה אל ההבנה התיאורטית, ומבחינתם ניסויים הם משהו משני בחשיבותו. אנשים אלו דומים, בעיניו, לסכוליסטיקנים של ימי הביניים, מין מלומדים העסוקים ב”התעמלות מחשבתית”, בהמצאת דוגמות משונות, באקרובטיקה לשונית, וכל הדברים הללו מנתקים אותם מן המציאות.

לא קשה לראות כי האבחנה שערך שטארק מבדילה בעצם בין פיסיקאים נסיוניים לתיאורטיקנים. גיבוריו של שטארק הם הנסיונאים הגדולים של ראשית המאה העשרים, ובפרט ארנסט רתפורד ורבו פאול לנארד (ההוא מפוטנציאל לנארד-ג’ונס). הנבלים בסיפור שלו, אותם פיסיקאים דוגמטיים המהרסים את המדע, הם התיאורטיקנים הגדולים שהוא לא מהסס לנקוב בשמותיהם: בראש ובראשונה אלברט איינשטיין, וכמובן כנופית הקוואנטים: בורן, שרדינגר, היזנברג, זומרפלד. הוא מתאר אותם כרודפי פרסום רעשניים היוצאים למסעות יחסי ציבור סביב העולם כאשר רעיונותיהם ההזויים, הדוגמטיים והמבושלים למחצה עדיין לא נבחנו בניסוי.

בפרספקטיבה מאמרו זה של שטארק הוא די מדהים. עם כל ההערכה לתרומותיהם של שטארק או לנארד, איש לא רואה בהם היום חוקרים בני השוואה עם אנשים כמו איינשטיין או שרדינגר ששינו את עולם הפיסיקה מן היסוד.

שטארק גם לא היסס לערב את עמדותיו הסוציולוגיות (או הביולוגיות) בסיפור. הוא מסביר כי מאז ומקדם עיקר התגליות החשובות של הפיסיקה נעשו על ידי מדענים אריים (“רובם מהגזע הנורדי”), ולעומת זאת בין אנשי האסכולה הדוגמטית המושחתת יש “נוכחות מכרעת של אנשים ממוצא יהודי”. הוא אמנם מציין שיש להעריך תגליות חשובות ללא קשר ללאומיותו אל לגזעו של המגלה, ויש להלחם בדוגמטיזם “בלי קשר לשאלה אם העבריין הוא יהודי או לא”, אבל בכל זאת האבחנה הבסיסית נשארת.

מה למדנו אנו כאן?

לבטאונים המדעיים המובילים יש מנהג מוזר לפרסם מאמרי עמדה, כלומר לא מאמרים המספרים על תגלית או מציעים איזו סינתזה אלא כאלו המבטאים מחשבות כלליות שהקשר ביניהן למדע הוא עקיף. לנו, הקוראים, חשוב לזכור שכאשר האנשים הללו עוזבים את הנושאים בהם יש להם מומחיות וגולשים לנושאים בעלי השלכות חברתיות או פוליטיות, מה שנקבל, בסיכוי של כמעט מאה אחוז, זה את הזבל שבאותו רגע נתון הוא אפנתי באותן שכבות חברתיות מהן באים עורכי כתב העת, אולי בשילוב של קצת יותר יהירות שנובעת מתפיסתם המופרכת לפיה הם מדברים מעמדתם כמדענים פלוס הבטחון שיש להם בכך שהם לא ישלמו שום מחיר על שפה בוטה.

כתבתי על כך בעבר, בהקשר להרצאות של קארל בנדר, אבל אני סבור שחשוב לחזור על כך: כאשר אתם פוגשים “מכתב של ששים מתמטיקאים” או כאשר עתון מדעי ממליץ על מועמד לנשיאות – תנו לכך את המשקל הראוי. פחות או יותר אפס.

אז כן, מנצל המדע המפורסם, אבי בליזובסקי מתלהב מכך שאפילו עורכי הסיינס הצטרפו לקריאת הקודש הנרגשת של הנייצר להצביע לביידן (כי הביולוגים והזיאולוגים במאמרם הנלעג, קבעו שיש לו “יחס רעיל כלפי נשים”, וממילא זו פגיעה בלתי הפיכה במדע… הבה ונאמר בעדינות שיחסו ה’חביב’ של קלינטון כלפי נשים, ואף של ביידן עצמו לפי תיעודים פומביים, לא מפריעים לאותם צבועים). אנשים שפויים לעומת זאת, רואים במאמרים אלו את זיהומו של המדע, את הנסיונות לכפות דעה מסויימת, השערה כל שהיא, לעובדה ולדת קיומית.

נשלח אותכם בפעם המליון לבלוג הירוק, כדי להתמודד עם עובדות, לאחרונה מה שעושה פרופ’ מיכה קליין, הוא פשוט להציב עובדות במשפטים קצרים, אין צורך אפילו להוסיף משפטי קריאה, צרור ציטוטים של אנשי מדע ובכירים בענף האקלים, בכירים אפילו יותר מגרטה הנה:

אל גור אמר ב2007 “ב2013 הקוטב הצפוני יהיה חופשי מקרח”, על הפעילות הזו הוא זכה בפרס נובל.

יורש העצר הבריטי צ’ארלס אמר ב2009 “יש לנו שמונה שנים להציל את העולם”.

גורדון בראון, אמר ב2009: “יש לנו פחות מ50 יום להציל את העולם מקטסטרופה”.

לורן פאביוס ב2014: “יש לנו 500 יום למנוע כאוס אקלימי”.

פרופ’ פטר וודהמס אמר ב2013: “בתוך שנתיים הקוטב הצפוני יהיה חפשי מקרח”.

ב2008 יצא גילוי דעת של ‘מדעני נאס”א’ לאמור: “תוך 5-10 שנים הקוטב הצפוני יהיה חפשי מקרח”.

במסמך רשמי של חיל האויר האמריקאי, נכתב כי ב2016 הקוטב הצפוני יהיה חפשי מקרח.

זה פרצופם הנלעג של נביאי השקר מנצלי המדע. דוגמאות למאות בבלוג הירוק. רק עובדות. שקרים בשם המדע.

המשך לקרוא…

מאתר רציו, כאן.