Grand Strategy in the Age of Mass Destruction

American Thinker Notes

1) Not only Clare M. Lopez’ review was pulled out. Before Ronald Radosh’s review, a review, favorable of American Betrayal by Mark Tapson, was pulled out from FrontPage Magazine. Before being pulled out, the reviews reached to be published at Ruthfully Yours, so both are available on the Internet. There is a golden rule in the blogosphere: “Never pull out or edit what once has been published.”

2) A review is made by an individual – maybe attached to an organization. It has the right to be colorful and tough. A “take-down” is a collective act by a number of reviewers, with the purpose to destroy the work and its author. According to the law – “take-downs” are illegal. “Slander” is the name of the crime in most Western countries. The most common method is silence. As Vladimir Bukovsky notes, this time this method wasn’t chosen by the critics of American Betrayal.

3) Indicates that Ronald Radosh is a scrupulous scholar.

4) Ms. West requested for a bibliography to her editor St Martins. It was turned down. Dr. Lipkes got this information by e-mail from Ms. West before his essays were published at American Thinker.

5) Dr. Lipkes implies that repetitions themselves per definition are bad and “unscholarly” writing. I disagree. In the three essays by Dr. Lipkes, I found 15 uses of “In fact”, “The truth is”, “The obvious truth”, “No question”, “Actually”, “No doubt” and “Unquestionably”.

6) M. Stanton Evans is an acknowledged scholar. He wasn’t irritated.

7) Quotes, even written down and witnessed, should be regarded with suspicion.

8) Big Lie. I refer to “The Morgenthau Plan” by John Dietrich.

9) Small Lie. What about the Treasury Department?

10) “Today, the captain was sober.”

11) Then don’t!

12)   Ronald Radosh was “deeply offended”.

It is common among radical Muslims to use “being an offended victim” as an acceptable argument for acting violently in higher or lesser degree.