A Trifecta of Three Phony “Scandals”

This is a letter I just received. The Republicans are going to gin up another fake impeachment proceeding, along with another Congressional investigation. We are back in the Clinton years, when US democracy dove to the stinkingist fascist and totalitarian depths in its history with endless investigations of one phony scandal after another.

Finally, they impeached Clinton on totally ridiculous grounds (Clinton beat the impeachment handily at a trial). There is one place you see the sort of sick, twisted, corrupt politics crap, and that’s in the 3rd World. The Turd World. The Republican Party has turned America into a gigantic Turd World country.

In the Turd World, there are constant fake investigations of fake scandals, and Presidents are always being impeached on phony political grounds. In addition, Presidents are assaulted, placed under arrest, tortured and even murdered on a regular basis, generally in the context of a military coup. This is particularly prevalent in the Sewer of the World, Latin America. This nonsense has gone on in most Latin American shitholes, including Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Ecuador, Guyana, Colombia, Brazil, Peru and Chile.

All of these coups and assassinations have been done by the Latin American rightwing, which is an objectively fascist rightwing movement and always has been. Whenever any populist or progressive government comes in, the rightwing in that Latin American country tries to oust them via assassination, coup or a fake impeachment. The US has supported 100% of these radically antidemocratic and fascist incidents in Latin America. There has never been a single fascist coup in Latin America that did not have the 100% backing of the United Snakes.

In the rest of the world, it is as bad or worse. In Pakistan, presidential candidates are murdered on a regular basis.In the rest of the Turd World, opposition candidates are often jailed or worse. This is what is happening in Turkey at the moment, and it was going on earlier in Iran. Opposition party candidates are murdered on a regular basis in the Philippines.

Scandal hearings should be reserved for the worst of the worst. Iran-Contra and the S & L Crisis are good examples. If you recall, the Democrats did not turn either of those hearings into impeachment proceedings. Impeachment should only be for the worst of crimes. A good example was President Nixon, who would have been impeached had he not resigned, for bugging the headquarters of the Democratic Party during the 1972 campaign. I can hardly think of a single impeachable case since 1972. This is just dirty politics and nothing else, and it is sleazy as Hell.

Every Administration will have scandals of various types. It is inevitable under our money infested system where both parties are tied to big money and corporate rule. In almost all cases, these scandals are run of the mill things that any Administration goes through. However, whenever a Democratic President is in office, any of the usual scandals that any Administration deals with will have huge hearings in Congress, threats of impeachment and special prosecutors.

Objective evidence shows that there were far more scandals and there was far more corruption under Bush and Reagan than under Clinton or Obama. But no matter how corrupt or scandal ridden a Republican is, the spineless Democrats will never do anything about it. Not a single hearing, no special prosecutor, no impeachment proceedings. On the other hand, the far fewer scandals under a Democrat will be turned into a Ringling Brothers affair that dominates the idiotic headlines for months to years.

Nothing Obama has done warrants impeachment or even a hearing.

The Benghazi Consulate was a CIA office – 80% of the personnel there were CIA officers. The Islamists knew that, and that is why it was attacked. The CIA failed to provide enough security for the consulate, and they relied too much on unproven Libyan security.

The call for backup amounted to a call for “4 men” to arrive. Do you think 4 armed US forces would have turned the situation around? There was a call to bring in a helicopter gunship to fire missiles or machine gun fire or a jet to bomb the area. However, the area is surrounded by civilians, and in the initial attack, no one really had any idea what was going on.

There was an order given to stand down and not send in air power until more could be learned about the confused situation. The forces on the ground evacuated the Americans from the consulate to a safe house, but the Islamists were waiting at the safe house for them.

In a hazy situation were no one knew what was going on, it would have been madness to drop bombs or shoot missiles at the heavily inhabited area at the consulate, the safe house and the area in between. The forces at the consulate fought very well. Although 4 Americans were killed, 32 were rescued. In addition, ~100 Islamist attackers were killed.

          Benghazi #killed

Americans 4
Islamists 100

This was a battle in a war we are fighting with Al Qaeda and allied Islamists. By any standard metric, we won this battle. It is beyond me why this is some sort of a scandal. We fight battles all the time in the war with Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other Islamists. Some we win, some we lose. Sometimes our men are killed or wounded. Should there be hearings, special prosecutors or impeachment proceedings every time an American is killed by the enemy overseas? What kind of insanity is that?

The IRS scandal is a joke. As a result of Citizens United, many political outfits such as Karl Rove’s Crossroads set themselves up as tax exempt social welfare organizations that do not engage in political work. Obviously, this is a lie. This was mostly done on the Right, as word went out via Karl Rove to the rightwing grassroots to claim social welfare status to pay no taxes.

Approximately 250-300 groups with “tea party” in their name engaged in this crime by lying and calling themselves social welfare organizations. The IRS identified all of these groups engaged in this fraud and crime and sent them letters demanding to see their paperwork.

Since a vast amount of “tea party” groups were engaging in this sort of crime, lower level IRS officials in Indianapolis targeted every group with “tea party” in their name and sent them these letters demanding that they prove they were a political group or a social welfare group. Unfortunately, a number of liberal organizations also committed these crimes and called themselves social welfare groups to claim tax exempt status. All of these liberal groups were also targeted by the IRS and they received letters demanding to see their paperwork.

The IRS was completely correct to do what they did. There was no scandal, not even the whiff of one. When 300 groups with tea party in their name are engaging in crime, it looks like smoke. Where there is smoke, there is fire. That massive crime spree by tea party groups was enough to put every group with tea party in their name under suspicion.

It is right and proper for the IRS to determine if any political group of any stripe of committing crime by falsely representing themselves. In addition, liberal groups committing these crimes were also questioned. When you commit crimes, you may get called in for questioning by authorities. This is the job of the authorities. If you abuse tax laws and cheat on your taxes, expect a call from the IRS. This was no political prosecution. The local Indianapolis office was 100% correct in what they did.

Obama caved in spinelessly as usual, firing the IRS Director for the crime of enforcing tax law and fighting tax criminals and massive tax fraud and evasion. A cop was fired for enforcing the law because the Republican criminals and their friends demanded he be fired.

I do not know enough about the targeting of AP reporters’ phone records. This is not a prosecution of the media. Instead, they were trying to find out who was leaking to the AP about the CIA’s secret wars overseas. So this is part of Obama’s war on whistleblowers.

The war on whistleblowers went completely wild under Ronald Reagan, who attacked whistleblowers more than any previous president. It has continued to this day. It was particularly nasty under George Bush and included the outrageous outing of active CIA agents for political purposes. Republican and Democratic Administrations both have gone after whistleblowers in a vicious way.

Republicans screaming about this were utterly silent when George Bush and Ronald Reagan waged all out war against whistleblowers. In addition, Republicans have, up until this point, backed all of Obama’s anti-whistleblower activities.

In fact, they have accused him of being soft of whistleblowers – see the Bradley Manning case, where Republicans have called for Manning to be executed – and the Wikileaks case, where the Republicans have called for Julian Assange to be arrested, sent to the US, tried and executed for treason. They have also called for Assange to be assassinated by a US hit squad. So you see, even if Obama wages a war on whistleblowers, the Republicans support it and even double down on it.

Impeach the President. Seriously?

That’s where the Republicans are going. Rep. Jason Chaffetz could barely keep from giggling at the possibility on CNN yesterday. Even Wolf Blitzer looked a little uncomfortable.

Of course, they want a special prosecutor.

Scott Walker spent his day telling everyone from the La Crosse Tribune to middle-school tour groups that we must appoint a special prosecutor. Guess who’s running for president?

Anyone old enough to remember the nineties knows this can turn ugly fast.

Meanwhile, back in reality, there’s a real scandal taking place: Tens of thousands of kids have been kicked out of preschool. Teachers are being laid off. Meals on Wheels for housebound seniors have been cut.

While GOP consultants across the DC area put Ken Starr back on speed dial, millions of people are suffering from the sequester. The young, the poor and the elderly. Every day, it will get worse.

Boston Bombings: Blowback or Not?

Tulio writes:

Well many non-religious people were incensed about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well but didn’t decide blow innocent people up in protest.

You don’t get it. The Muslims have the concept of the ummah. An attack on one is an attack on all of us. The Al Qaeda radical Islamists say that the US has to be counterattacked for killing Muslims in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and previously in Iraq. This is the mindset that this guy is buying into. According to Al Qaeda, it is ok to kill US civilians because the US killed Muslims.

Many US patriot types insist that the various attacks on the US, from 9-11 to the Boston Bombings, were not blowback for US actions abroad. If they were not blowback, then why did the attackers of 9-11 and the Boston Bombings attack us? Because they hate our freedoms? LOL.

US Conservatives Are Not Evil; They Are Insane

I really don’t think most US conservatives are evil or bad. I just think they are wrong. Actually I do not think they are wrong. I know they are wrong. Almost everything they say and believe is simply wrong. For the most part, what they believe are lies, nonsense, crap, idiocy and bullshit. If we know a human being whose beliefs are all nonsensical, we usually won’t say he is evil. We might be charitable and just say he is a nutcase.

Almost all of the problems with US conservatives are because they are ludicrously partisan. To be partisan is one thing, but a conservative will never admit he is partisan.

Let us look at some examples:

Benghazi Embassy scandal: There was no scandal. Al Qaeda is waging a global war on us, and they will attack our troops and embassies any chance they can get. The Administration tried their hardest to fortify the embassy, as hard as any other administration would have tried. The diplomatic aspect of the state in the State Department is nonpartisan. Embassy personnel are staffed via the Pentagon and the CIA and contractors. Under any administration, priority will be on protecting the lives of diplomatic personnel and the integrity of US embassies.

Democratic administrations are not so stupid as to scrimp on security overseas, and there is no evidence that Republicans protect embassies any better than Democrats. One of the worst attacks ever on a US embassy occurred in 1983 when Hezbollah hit the US Embassy in Beirut. Almost all the American “civilians” killed were working for the CIA, but don’t let that bother you.

As sometimes happens, our enemies got the best of us one day in Libya. This would never have happened under Gaddafi, but we overthrew him and put Al Qaeda in charge of Libya, so that’s why our embassy got overrun.

Truth be told, wasn’t the 9-11 attack on the US far worse than the Benghazi attack in which one ambassador was killed? On 9-11, 3,000 Americans were killed, on our own soil nonetheless. But somehow to conservatives this is not a failure to protect the US homeland and citizens, but an attack that kills one ambassador is? That’s just partisan bullshit; it’s nothing more and nothing less.

If the Benghazi attack occurred under a Republican President, conservatives would not have said a word. Security failures only occur under Democratic Presidents, never under Republican Presidents. If 9-11 would have occurred under a Democratic President, conservatives would still be screaming about how “the liberals let Al Qaeda attack us.” But since it happened under a Republican, you will never hear a word of this. This makes no sense. 9-11 was either a security failure or it was not. It can’t be the case that it would have been a security failure under a Democrat, but since it occurred under a Republican, it could not possibly be one.

Lie: Obama represents something called “Chicago-style politics.” The implication here is that Obama is corrupt to the core, a representative of corrupt Chicago Democratic Party-labor union machine politics going back decades. The truth is that that corrupt machine got dismantled quite some time ago. It is true that Democratic politics in Chicago used to be very corrupt, especially under Mayor Daley. Corrupt elections were the norm, and dead people voted early and often.

Corrupt Democratic crooks in Chicago stole so many votes in Chicago in 1960 that they probably gave John F. Kennedy the election. So JFK no doubt stole his way into office. The dead have not voted in Chicago in quite some time, and federal RICO prosecutions and raids have pretty much shut down the overtly corrupt aspect of Chicago politics. To my knowledge, Chicago politics nowadays is no more corrupt than the politics of any other large US city.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that Obama is part of any Chicago corrupt Daley-style machine. That machine was made up of old style ethnic Whites, and the new Democratic politics in Chicago is much more progressive, even radical, and clean. It’s true that Penny Pritzger, Rahm Emanuel and Bill Ayers were part of the local politics scene, but neither one is corrupt. In fact Ayers and other radical types would be very against that sort of thing. Emanuel and and Pritzger come out of US finance capital and are as corrupt or non-corrupt as anyone tied at the hip to Wall Street as almost 100% of the Republican Party is.

How about Obama since he has been in office? There is no evidence that the Obama Administration is particularly corrupt as an Executive Branch. Sure, they take lots of corporate money, but the Republicans take way more, and that’s all legal anyway. There have been very few serious corruption cases under Obama.

The truth is that corruption in the US reached an all-time recent high under Ronald Reagan. It was also very high under George Bush Jr. The more capitalist the political party is, the more corrupt it is. The Democrats are not so wedded to US big business and multinational corporations as Republicans are, hence you see a lot less corruption. Any political party with profound ties to Big Capital will almost always be extremely corrupt. This fact can even be shown on a worldwide scale. Parties that are more socialist or populist and less tied to the rich and Big Capital will tend to be less corrupt since there is less Big Money to go around and they at least pay lip service to the lower 80% of the population.

Conclusion: There is no “Chicago-style politics” anymore, and even if there is, Obama is not representative of it. The old machine is dead and gone, possibly never to be revived. That Obama is some corrupt, vote-stealing, bribe-taking, brutal Daley style machine crook is simply nonsense.

Lie: Obama is killing the Keystone XL pipeline because he has ties to the Waltons, heirs to the Walmart fortune, who will lose big money if the pipeline goes through. Truth is that Obama, corporatist that he is, largely supports the Keystone XL, but he is under huge pressure from environmentalists to cave in. So Obama the corporatist is caught between his Big Money backers in Big Oil (Obama is a strong supporter of Big Oil) and the environmentalists on the Left of his party.

Obama, being a rightwing corporate capitalist whore, is inclined to support the pipeline because his corporate pimps demand it of him. However, he is pressured from the Left to kill the pipeline. So he is caught in a bind. The only wavering he is doing at all is because he is under pressure from environmentalists. If he stops Keystone XL, it will be because the environmentalists convinced him.

Conclusion: Obama has no position on Keystone XL, but is inclined to support it. But he is under pressure from his Left to kill it. The verdict is up to him.

Lie: Environmental organizations lie about the environment because they are paid many millions of dollars to lie about it. This is simply not true. Environmental groups are not corrupt, and there is no money in protecting the environment. There are no rich or business interests paying off environmental activists to do this or that. The entire environmental movement really is anti-capitalist.

Its goal is to shut down or regulate various capitalist enterprises so they can not make any money at all since they are not allowed to start up or because their operations are shut down. In other cases, it seeks to regulate capitalist enterprises in such a way as to limit the profits of Capital. The capitalists are the ones with money in capitalist societies. Since the goals of environmentalists’ projects are to limit or in some cases to disallow capitalists’ profits, no capitalist will ever support this movement.

It is certainly possible that there are rich people somewhere dishing out millions of dollars to environmental groups in order to lie about environmental problems, but there is no evidence that this is occurring. Anyway, US environmental problems are bad enough that there is no need to lie about anything; the truth is bad enough as it is. I have been following this movement for decades now and I have never uncovered a single case of environmentalists inventing nonexistent problems or even exaggerating current ones. There’s no need to do so. If projects are environment-friendly, environmentalists are content to let them go forward.

Conclusion: There are no environmental groups lying about environmental problems as the truth is bad enough. 100% of the lying is on the side of the capitalist destroyers and polluters who obviously have huge pecuniary interest in lying. No one is giving millions of $ to environmentalists to make up lies, and there is no evidence that no one ever has.

Lie: China and India are causing the majority of global warming, so we needn’t worry about global warming here in the US. Pollute away!

The truth is that China and India together cause ~8% of global warming in the world. Sure it is on the rise, but that is the current figure. Most global warming is coming out of the West.

Conclusion: The West is causing global warming, not the rest of the world.

Lie: Barack Obama, radical Islamist Kenyan born Muslim, is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The MB are radical Al Qaeda style terrorists who hate the US and Israel. It is true that the MB are radical Islamists and they are pretty nasty. But a Republican administration would probably also support the MB regime in Egypt. Egypt gets that $2-3 billion/year as a payoff for making peace with Israel back in 1979.

So all those billions are not going for the radical Islamist MB in Egypt, instead it is going for a bunch of Jews squatting in Palestine. It’s a payoff to the Jews, nothing more, nothing less. If you’re upset about it, head on over to Hymietown, find yourself a deli, and complain to anyone who will listen to you.

Truth is that due to geopolitics, a Republican administration would probably have to support the MB to the tune of $2-3 billion a year too. If you cut off all that aid, Egypt might just tear up that peace treaty with Israel, and we can’t have that. So the aid stays, no matter which administration is in charge.

Besides, there is not a whole lot of evidence that the Egyptian MB is any more radical Islamist than the radical Sunni Islamist regimes in the Gulf. Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Yemen are all run by radical Islamist regimes. In fact, the Egyptian MB has very deep ties to the Wahhabi clergy in Saudi Arabia, and it was the emigration of many MB Islamists to Saudi Arabia due to persecution by secular regimes that helped fuel Al Qaeda in the first place.

What created Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda was created when large numbers of MB activists from Egypt and then later from Syria migrated to Saudi Arabia due to persecution by secular regimes in Egypt and Syria. The Wahhabi clerics had been rather quietist up until this point. But the MB cadres were radicalized by persecution and torture in their homelands, and they riled up the locals, turning up the heat on the quietist Wahhabi clergy. It was out of this union of Mediterranean MB activists with Saudi Wahhabi clergy that Al Qaeda itself was born.

Conclusion: Obama probably doesn’t like the Egyptian MB regime any more than any Republican would. But the rules of geopolitics are that Egypt must be supported as a consequence of US support for Israel. As with so many things in the Middle East, all roads lead back to Jerusalem.

Bin Laden’s Letter to America Was Probably Not Written by Him

Swedish Shit is a Hindutvadi and an extreme Islamophobe:

In a letter to America, purportedly written by Osama bin Laden published in the Observer on November 24th, the terrorist leader (or holy warrior depending on which side you are on) said:

“As for the second question that you want an answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.”

His confidence in eventual victory is shown from this verse from the Koran (61:9) that he quoted in the letter:
“It is He who has sent his Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it victorious over all other religions even though the Polytheists hate it.”

Towards the end of the letter, Osama said:
“If the Americans refuse to listen to our advice and the goodness, guidance and righteousness that we call them to, then be aware that you will lose this crusade Bush began,

just like the other Crusades in which you were humiliated by the hands of the Mujahideen, fleeing to your home in great silence and disgrace.”

I had been studying Al Qaeda for quite some time via reading their materials on the Internet. A lot of my reading was on a site called Jihad Unspun, which may no longer exist. I had studied almost all of bin Laden’s writings in their English translations.

When the Letter to America came out, I immediately thought that this was not written by bin Laden. The style of the writing and the tone was quite a bit different. Bin Laden wrote in classical Arabic and when translated into English, it had a flowery and archaic tone about it. Furthermore the themes in Letter to America did not line up with previous themes. My gut feeling was that it was written by another author.

Somehow I managed to get ahold of the FBI office in Washington DC. They actually had a bin Laden or Al Qaeda office that was looking into bin Laden and Al Qaeda. However, I called on the weekend on an evening, and the office was closed for the weekend. Shouldn’t the bin Laden office have been working all the time? I left a message and told them I had info about bin Laden and Al Qaeda and to get back to me.

About a month later, a strange man called me up and soon identified himself as an FBI agent. He was suspicious of me and wondered what my connection to the Al Qaedists was. He also wanted to know why I was hanging out on radical Islam websites. It was creepy to go to the cops as with a tip against a suspect and be treated like a suspect yourself. When I told him I was not a Muslim convert, he calmed way down and pretty much shut down the suspicious tone. I also told him that I was a Leftist, and that we basically hated fundamentalist idiots, especially the Muslim kind. I told him my suspicions about the Letter to America not being written by bin Laden and he said they were sort of thinking that themselves. All in all, it was an interesting conversation, but I had to admit it left me a bit shaken.

Islamophobes are Insane

Despite the fact that I have some critical views about Islam myself, I continue to hold that the Islamophobes of the world are insane. They make no sense at all. Another commenter noted recently that the Hindutvadis of India (really nearly all middle to upper class high caste Hindus) have a hatred of Islam that makes no sense whatsoever and is completely irrational. I would agree with that. The Hindutvadi commenters on this blog have a truly irrational hatred of Islam.

To some extent it is true that Islam is a menace, and it is a violent religion, but it’s mostly a problem in the various sandboxes that are ruled by Islam. In other words, Islam is mostly a problem for Muslims and not for the rest of us. To the extent that it is a problem for the rest of is is mostly due to the fact that we can’t seem to stop attacking and killing Muslims. As long as we do that, they will wage defense or revenge based Islam on us.

The truth is that that most Islamophobes are motivated by reaction. There are very few progressive Islam-haters (there are some in Afghanistan and Iran) because Islamophobia is not a progressive value.

Almost all Islamophobes in the West are motivated by political reaction. In other words, they are beasts themselves – they are the very beasts that they accuse the Muslims of being. In Europe, Islamophobes are associated with the most reactionary elements of Europe – European and even White nationalists. They are also associated with all of the fascist and quasi-fascist parties in Europe.

They are strongly aligned with Zionism, a vile imperialist and settler-colonial fascist project that occupies and conquers Arab lands and has expansionist aims on the rest of it.They are politically reactionary, and many of them have begun to rail against socialism and the welfare state and have started to rail for radical neoliberal economics. In the UK, they are responsible for Crusade-like invasions of Muslim lands in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Russia it is much the same, except the Islam-haters are even worse – more racist, more fascist and much more violent. They are associated with a violent project to deny the majority-Muslim lands in the Caucasus their right to self-determination, which is their inherent right after all. Instead, like Crusaders of recent European colonizers, the Russians have made much of the Caucasus into colonies. In the meantime, they committed genocide against the Muslims of Chechnya.

In Israel, the Islamophobes are associated with the most fascist,  backwards, conquering and expansionist elements of the Jews. I should note that these same elements hate Christians and non-Jews about as much as they hate Islam. These are the monsters of the Jewish people, as wicked as they accuse the Muslims of being. This group is also politically reactionary, and is responsible for imposing radical neoliberalism on Israel which has resulted in many social problems, including widespread homelessness.

In Lebanon, the Muslim haters are associated with the Maronite Christian Falangist movement, a true fascist movement that has the distinction of being the first movement to bring European style fascism (like the Nazis) to Lebanon. The founders of this movement worshiped Hitler. This is a true monstrosity, a blood and soil fascist movement that has deep roots in Maronite society. In addition, this group is politically reactionary, supporting the closest thing to radical neoliberalism anywhere in the Arab World.

In India, the Muslim haters are the most poisonous, backwards, fascistic and casteist elements of Indian society, strongly associated with the high caste Hindu elite. There is a lot of evidence that the hatred of Islam by Hindutvadis is because the Muslims humiliated the high castes and removed them from their position of privilege in Hindu society. This is an extremely fascist movement whose leaders also worshiped Hitler. They are responsible for a genocide against Muslims in Gujarat in which 2,500 Muslims were slaughtered with state support.

This movement is associated also with radical neoliberal economics and hatred for socialism and the poor and lower castes of India. It is an elite movement designed to deepen poverty in India, enrich the high castes and restore the high castes to their position of privilege which they felt was denied them in a movement since Independence. They represent the most primitive and barbaric elements of Hindu culture, which is backwards, cruel, amoral  and parasitic anyway. These are the monsters of India and the monsters of the world, a danger to the SubCon and to the rest of us as they spread out like a plague around the globe. They are every bit as vicious and monstrous as the Muslims they hate so much.

The bottom line is that Islamophobes are simply bad people.

Everywhere it exists on Earth, it is associated with idiotic and barbaric religious fundamentalism, either Jewish, Christian or Hindu. It is generally associated with the most reactionary elements in every society, and it usually wishes to impose radical rightwing economics on society in the form of neoliberalism.

This is an elite project designed to enrich the top 20% of society while impoverishing when it is not starving or killing off the bottom 80%. It has been responsible for many millions of deaths in the last few decades, mostly via denial of medical care through mandated state kickbacks. In some societies like Israel, Europe and Russia, it is associated with racism in the form of ethnic nationalism – Jewish nationalism in Israel and White nationalism in Europe and Russia.

If Islamophobes were decent people themselves then we might have a movement to counterpoise the backwards and violent nature of Islam. Instead they are just as bad as the Muslims and in fact in many cases, they are probably even worse. They vastly exaggerate and lie about Muslims and Islam, and ridiculous overplay the dangers associated with this religion, which is mostly a danger to its own adherents anyway.

The Boston Bombings as Blowback

Matt writes:

Sorry, this just doesn’t apply to the Boston bombings at all. The U.S. gave these thugs the best it had to offer, and they bit the hand that fed them. Not to mention the fact that the U.S. had *nothing* to do with the situation in Chechnya.

The Boston Bombings were in fact blowblack. The older brother said he was very angry about the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the very least. According to these jihadis, they are only fighting back.

They say that we are killing Muslims in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan (not really in Iraq anymore). This is true. We are killing Muslims with drones in the first three places and with guns on the ground in the last. Supposedly they are all part of Al Qaeda (except in Afghanistan), but this is not really true. At least in Pakistan, we are mostly just killing Pakistani Islamists.

The drone war is only allowed by Congress to kill “members of Al Qaeda actively planning immanent attacks against the US homeland.” Obviously most drone attacks are not even sanctioned under US law, and are hence illegal even by our own laws. Not that any American even cares.

Perhaps we should be running around the world zapping Al Qaeda types from the skies. But Congress has not sanctioned us to do that, and that’s a problem.

And as long as we are running around the world hitting Al Qaeda and other Islamist types with drones and with real guns on the ground in Afghanistan, Salafists and Al Qaeda type jihadists say they are going to attack us back anywhere they can hit us, even on our own soil.

War is like a battle between preschoolers. It’s always, “He started it! He hit me back!”

In war, everyone is always “fighting back.” Even Hitler claimed his conquests as defensive. Most of the world’s offensive armies are paradoxically called “defense forces.”

A Critique of Islam from an Anti-Hindu India

India Land of Rapes is an Indian Hindu who is a strong critic of his society. But he also has a dim opinion of Islam:

Islam is a Semitic religion. Semites suffer from genetic psychological diseases.

They are mostly interested in Domestication, Control and Revenge.

These 3 are fundamental aspects of ISLAM. Domestication of infidel nations, Control of their wealth and Revenge against anyone who opposes their stupidity

The Bedouin landlord Muhammad created a religion of hate. Still these idiots are arguing over their lunatic book and can’t get over their differences.

Switch on any Arabic TV – its all about Shia vs. Sunni, Which Islamic verse sanctions beheading infidel and how much jizya must be imposed on infidels.

Islam today is in dark ages – no intellectual life – intellectual life is detested.

I don’t see any great intellectual life or schools from Islamic nations. Universities like Al Azhar teach lunatic texts.

Islamic idiots know very well that their culture cannot create anything.

A complete generation of human spirit is fucked by Islamic societies.

I am not saying Hinduism is great. Hindus are despicable creatures; most of them are parasitic – they lead parasitic lives.

And South Asian Muslims are seriously fucked in their brains; most of them belong to low caste tribes, and their identity is lost.

This is a most interesting critique.

How is that Islam tries to domesticate infidel societies?

In the past, they tried to conquer us, but honestly, that is not going on anymore. So how are they trying to neuter us at the moment?

Islam, a Religion Programmed to Conquer

Obviously the Islamic plan is to gradually take over all infidel societies via conversion and high birthrates. This is clear from statements out of CAIR, the major Islamic organization in the US. Once a society gets a large number of Muslims, strife and typically terrorism begins against the infidels for all sorts of reasons. Almost all societies with large Muslim minorities or a near parity between Muslims and infidels have a Muslim terrorist problem going on – some sort of a jihad.

Any infidel nation that gets a large number of Muslims situated in part of its land will end up having this part of its land beset by a Muslim separatist insurgency. Interestingly, no Muslim nation will ever allow similarly a heavily infidel part of its land to separate. This is what is behind all of the Islamist rage about East Timor, the Armenians, the Assyrians and even Al-Andalus: they had the nerve to secede. In part, this may also explain the opposition to Israel much as it pains me to say so.

In Islam, once the Muslims conquer a land, it is “consecrated by God to the Muslim waqf for all of time” (read the Hamas charter for more on that.) So Islam gets not only all the lands it has now but all the lands it has ever had. No infidel portion of a Muslim land may secede. Also to some extent, the infidel lands are up for grabs too via conversion, immigration and the jihad of the womb. This is a religion of conquest that is programmed for geographical stasis and at least not loss and at the most for geographical expansion: the lands of Islam must at the very least be constant and not shrink one inch and at best, they should be expandable.

I do agree to some extent with the Islamophobes who say that Islam is a religion of hate. It certainly has elements like that beyond that of most religions. Surely it is not generally a religion of peace.

And many to most Muslims do have violent tendencies in that they will support some sort of religious jihad.

A Pakistani friend supported most of the Muslim jihads around the world – in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Kashmir. She probably would have supported the ones in Thailand and the Philippines too. And she was a moderate Muslim.

The Sunni Yemenis I know support the Syrian Sunni jihad against the Syrian Shia Nusairi heretics.

A local Yemeni told me that a Yemeni woman who has sex outside of marraige should be killed.

So you see the violence they support is not only against infidels to some extent but also against their own who transcend whatever version of Sharia is applied. Islam is one hardass, badass, mofo religion. It’s not a religion for pussies or sissies, and it is macho and scary to the core.

One thing I will say for Muslims is at least they fight back. In Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, the Muslims seem to reject infidel conquest and dispossession forever. For this, I bow down to them, as many Christians will simply roll over and allow themselves to be conquered by the imperialism du jour.

And Muslims will also defend their religion. In Syria, takfiri Sunnis are destroying some of the holiest sites of Shiism. Recently a tomb was desecrated and the body of this Shia holy man was carried off by Al Qaeda. Many Shia have responded to say they will form “sacrifice squads” to defend the Shia holy sites. This is proper and morally correct.

They should fight to the death to defend their religion against those who wage genocidal war against it. And the Shia tend to be pretty circumspect about who they blow up with their suicide missions. A look at Lebanon shows us that they mostly hit Embassies (CIA) and military barracks (US Marine Corps).

They don’t seem to go in for civilian slaughter so much like the Sunni Salafis do, perhaps because Shia holy mean are loath to sanction civilian massacre, especially of other sects. Hezbollah does seem to have been behind some terrorist attacks against Jews in Iran, Israel and Argentina. There have been murders of Sunnis in Iraq and now in Syria, but in those cases, the Sunnis were also committing mass slaughter of Shia civilians.

In Iraq anyway, the Sunnis seem to be killing a lot more Shia civilians nowadays than the other way around. This is because in hardline Sunnism, Shiism is seems as apostasy; the Shia are heretics. In Islam, heretics may be freely killed with religious sanction. Shia religious scholars offer no Islamically sanctioned way to kill Sunni civilians, as Sunnis are not seen as heretics in Shiism. In fact, modern Shiism tends to downplay hostility to Sunnism; in Iran, Sunni hatred for the Shia is even denied and said to be provoked by Israel, the US and the UK using the Sunnis as a tool.

Islam is not exactly the greatest thing on Earth for intellectual life, but Iran is developing some great weapons systems at the very least, and Pakistan invented the Bomb. Iran may well be working towards a bomb. No anti-scientific society can possibly produce an atom bomb. Universities in the Gulf strongly promote medical education and some of the hospitals there are among the world’s best. Even in the Gulf, Islam is not opposed to the life-breathing essence of medical science.

So in terms of guns and smocks, Islam pragmatically sees benefit here.

And just to point out, the Muslims I have met both online and in real life are often quite educated. In fact, they tend to be much more educated than your average American, and most of those that I knew had college degrees. I would hasten to say that your average Muslim values knowledge more than your average Moronican.

Hindutva and the “Unfinished Partition”

Aakash is an interesting Indian Hindu living in the US who rejects much Indian Hindu culture as insipid, toxic and diseased, yet still embraces a Hindu identity. He also admits that caste is crap and it needs to go. Surely a casteless Hinduism could be formulated since all religions are human creations.

If religions are human creations, than Hinduism was created by man. If so, it could be constantly molded by men too.

Many religions have been through Reformations. The horrors of Early Christianity are long gone and probably never to return. Not long ago, non-Catholics were told to convert or die. That’s not happening anywhere no, and there are no Inquisitions on the horizon either. Lands are no longer conquered by Christendom, nor are heathens put to the sword. Christian heathens are not burned at the stake. Religious authorities are no longer in charge of Christian states via the throne or otherwise. In all of Christendom, separation of church and state is nearly complete. No Christian justifies slavery anymore or owns slaves.

If Christianity can go through a Reformation, Hinduism surely can too since it is generally less divinely inspired than Christianity.

Aakash:

Robert

While the attempt to finish partition is indeed a primary driving force for the Hindutvas, the bigger picture needs to be understood here.

Ask yourself the question: was the partition of India on religious basis fair or Justified? If anybody believes that it was, it was the most unfortunate event in the history of Hindus. The fact that by force (as in west Pakistan) or genocide (east Pakistan), Hindus have been eliminated in Pakistan and Bangladesh while Muslims still to this day have a strong presence in India has to hurt even the most rational of Hindus.

Ironically, this is where the Hindutvadis are barking up the wrong tree. Instead of focusing on the objective to expose the “nations” Pakistan and Bangladesh and showing solidarity with whatever number of Hindus that remain there, their hatred extends to all Muslims in general including Arabs, Turks, Persians etc who have nothing to do with present day India.

Hindutva movement is at best a display of high entropy randomness swinging from hating Muslims in general extending all the way to couples holding hands (most of them being Hindus themselves). There is no identity and will never be one simply because it has zero left wing element to it. Majority of poor in India are Hindus themselves and the Hindu right wing does nothing for them.

If, on the other hand, you believe (like I do) that the partition of India, if at all, should have been based on a more logical basis such as language/region, I urge you to start writing articles calling for the elimination of the rogue state of Pakistan and the shitty country that is Bangladesh.

I can understand Hindutva rage and where it is coming from. But the way they go about their business lacks reason and subtlety to say the least. This is in line with other South Asian crazies like Muslims.

Aakash is absolutely correct. The partition in a sense was a crime. Hindus were more or less ethnically cleansed in one way or another from both Pakistan and Bangladesh. In Pakistan, they were mostly just made to disappear via emigration and conversion to Islam (some of the conversion was pretty much forcible). In Bangladesh, Pakistani Muslims and their often Islamist collaborators massacred 3 million people, maybe 80% if whom were Hindus. It was truly a genocide. There are about 13% Hindus left in Bangladesh, and they are subject to regular serious persecution whereby their neighborhoods are burned to the ground and some of them are killed. It’s not quite Gujarat, but it’s nearly Kristallnacht.

Blaming Bangladeshi Muslims seems wrong as Bangladeshi society is horribly divided on this question. The more secular minded folks associated with a Congress-like party are outraged at the genocide, perhaps because a lot of Muslims were also killed. The more Islamist-minded mostly think the genocide was all well and good. An Islamist was recently put on trial for war crimes committed during the war, and this ignited passions in Bangladeshi society that have left a number of folks dead amid serious riots. Indian Hindus need to realize that a large section of Bangladeshi society thinks the genocide of 1971 was a horrific crime.

But on the surface, it does look unfair. Bangladesh and Pakistan were nearly cleansed of Hindus, yet there remains many Muslims in India. However, in the case of India and Bangladesh, the comparison is not a good one. India is 13% Muslim, and Bangladesh is 13% Hindu, so the proportions are the same, though the Hindus of Bangladesh look to be on the decline, and Muslims in India are set to rise.

One problem is that Islam always offers an out to the persecuted infidels, which does make Islam better than most forms of racism. In most racism, there really is no way out. In Nazi Germany, even converting to Christianity was enough to save a Jew as the persecution was racially inspired. One can hardly change one’s race at any rate.

Persecuted infidels in Muslim nations can always convert to Islam, and then the persecution will generally grind to a halt. This option is often heavily encouraged in Muslim nations as infidels are often under varying degrees of pressure to convert. Infidel females in particular are often kidnapped by Muslim men, raped and forced to convert. Intermarriage is another way as a Muslim man can marry an infidel woman and the children will all be raised Muslim, hence the infidel woman’s offspring are lost to the infidels. Female Muslims, the breed stock of Islam, are forbidden to marry out or if they do, the infidel man just convert. Islam gets the intermarried either way.

Muslims, no matter how they intermarry, end up having their offspring raised as Muslims. This is the sort of religion that is nearly programmed to multiply like a bacterium, a weed or an amphibian. In most societies, the Muslim population will tend to rise as the infidel population will tend to decrease. This simply another form of Islamic conquest, this one being the “jihad of the womb.”

I do not believe that Bangladesh or Pakistan should be broken up, at least not now. Pakistan actually needs breaking, but not until India breaks too. Neither one will split without or before the other, so neither will break up. If India breaks up, they lose to Pakistan. If Pakistan breaks up, they lose to India. Both nations are paranoid of the other, China and the US and they fear assimilation by outside powers.

Islam as a Hegemonic and Expansionist Religion

Pepperoncini writes:

There are plenty of cultures who are content with not trying to dominate the world and don’t keep pushing for a takeover when they go abroad. I sure as heck don’t notice: Polynesians, Copts, Greek Orthodox, Saivites, Buddhists, Shintoists, Tibetans etc…imposing themselves in the same manner as Islam. As shitty/wicked as Vedic Hinduism is, it pretty much limited itself to the SubCon. Buddhist Nationalists run pogroms in Burma and Sri Lanka but they don’t try to colonize other regions of the world.

While the West went on a world domination binge and still does run the world, they have changed significantly. They opened their countries to all religions and cultures. What Islamic country accepts non-Muslim immigration in any meaningful capacity and doesn’t keep its minorities in ‘their place’?

I absolutely do not believe that America & Canada would tolerate such large numbers of foreign cultures if they were Muslim run.

Your argument tries to deflect criticism of Islam’s hegemonic behavior by bringing up past actions of others. This is like Israeli apologists stating that so and so country has a worse human rights record so people shouldn’t focus on Israel. Islam has been expansionist for well over a millenia and is still going at it. Is there Hellenization in the present day?

Pepperoncini is a South Indian who is very much opposed to Vedic Hinduism as a North Indian supremacist imperialist culture imposed on the South. He also despises the caste system in the finest tradition of Ambedkar.

His comments about Islam are spot on.

While the West went on a world domination binge and still does run the world, they have changed significantly. They opened their countries to all religions and cultures. What Islamic country accepts non-Muslim immigration in any meaningful capacity and doesn’t keep its minorities in ‘their place’?

Indeed! The Muslims and the rest of the 3rd World White haters demand that all White countries must open their borders to be flooded by the non-Whites of this world. This is because Whites have created great countries that these non-Whites want to move to to reap the benefits because they destroyed their own non-White countries through their incompetence, lousy cultures or some other remediable failure.

The Muslims in particular are obnoxious and hypocritical about this. The infidel West must open its doors to be flooded by millions of alien, often hostile and frequently ill-behaved Muslims who, if they obtain enough numbers, will threaten the very nature of the West by Islamicizing it. Yet all Muslim countries must remain Muslim. Muslims must be treated wonderfully in the West by infidels, but Muslims are free to treat their non-Muslim minorities like crap, which as a general rule, they do.

The West must make its Muslims citizens, but Muslims have a right to import generations of infidel bonded labor who have no hope of ever obtaining citizenship, lest the Islamic nature of the society be challenged. Muslims have a right to limit proselytization and the building of infidel houses of worship in Muslim lands, but the infidels must not put limits on the building of mosques in infidel lands or Muslim conversion efforts of infidels in infidel lands. The blatant hypocrisy of Muslims is stunning and audacious.

I absolutely do not believe that America & Canada would tolerate such large numbers of foreign cultures if they were Muslim run.

Of course they would not! Yet no matter how much the West bends over backwards to accommodate outrageously hypocritical and imperialist-minded and conquest-oriented Muslims in the West, we are endlessly bashed as racists for our efforts at decency because we are never doing enough. You can’t win with this people.

Your argument tries to deflect criticism of Islam’s hegemonic behavior by bringing up past actions of others. This is like Israeli apologists stating that so and so country has a worse human rights record so people shouldn’t focus on Israel. Islam has been expansionist for well over a millenia and is still going at it. Is there Hellenization in the present day?

“Yeah but other people do it too,” is always a bad argument by miscreants, criminals and other bad actors. If you are accused of theft and you go before the judge and tell him that other people steal too or the judge’s grandfather was a thief and therefore you should be let go, what is he going to tell you?

The Israelis are masters of this crap. “But you used to be evil too!” the Jews wail endlessly. Great argument Jews! So the whole world gets to act evil forever because some people acted bad in the past and we can’t criticize present day evildoers when our ancestors were wicked too? Way to march forward into progress!

The Saffron Brigade

Frightening video about Hindutvadis (Hindu Nazis) in India. Note how the Hindutvadi talks about sending all Indian Muslims back to Pakistan. This is the “unfinished partition” that the Hindutvadis are always talking about.

They talk about a “genocide” of Pakistani Hindus and imply that there needs to be similar treatment of Indian Muslims. The truth is that there was no genocide of Pakistani Hindus. The population did decline from 20% to 2% from 1947 to present, but the vast majority of them were surely not killed, though some were. Most simply converted to Islam (though there were a number of more or less forced conversions, often of young Hindu women). The rest simply emigrated to India.

This collapse of a minority in a Muslim state is typical of most Muslim states. The minorities are persecuted so much that over time, they slowly convert to Islam to get better treatment. In some cases, there is mass emigration, though historically this has not been typical.

In many countries, a Muslim minority conquered the land and ruled over a non-Muslim majority. Once again, over time, the infidel majority simply converted to Islam to avoid persecution. In a few places such as the Balkans, Iberia and India, this did not occur. Muslim minorities ruled Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Bulgaria in the Balkans, Spain and Portugal in Iberia and all of India for centuries though the populations remained either Christian or Hindu in the case of India.

It would be interesting to see why some non-Muslim majorities refused to convert to Islam while others did. Hindus do not have any special immunity to Islam. In Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, there was mass conversion of Hindus to Islam for some reason, while in the core of India, “the cow belt” and in the South there was little conversion.

Nor do Christians have special immunity to Islam? Neither do they. Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey and Egypt were formerly Christian lands that mass converted to Islam.

The pre-Muslim religions of Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, the Gulf, the Gulf, the Stans, Xinjiang, the Caucasus and Indonesia are not well known.

In Iran, the population was mostly Zoroastrian with some Christians mixed in. The Zoroastrians probably experienced one of the worst mass conversions to Islam ever seen for unknown reasons.