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.

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 Is Not Progressive

Islamic devolution, evolution in reverse.

Look at how far backwards Afghanistan has gone. This is your society on Islamism. Afghanistan was a Muslim country in 1972 also, but look how different it was. There are many ways to be a Muslim country. Afghanistan was just as much of a Muslim country in 1972 as it is this year. The only thing that has changed is the fundamentalist nature of society.

It is amazing that liberals and the Left think that Islam and Islamism is the greatest thing since sliced bread.Why? Islam and Islamism is against everything the Left is for. If the Western Left is against anything, it must be against Islam and Islamism. It’s hard to imagine a form of Islam that won’t move Western societies backwards, and it’s hard to imagine a form of Islamism that won’t throw a Muslim country into reverse.

Sure, Hinduism blows, but so does Islam. Who says that Hinduism blows worse than Islam? It’s a tough call! Which religious cancer treats women worse, Islam or Hinduism? Once again, close call! Both of these religions are obscurantist forms of primitivism instead to move society backwards, not forwards.

According to the Left, history, like clocks, is supposed to move forwards. And I believe that is the general tendency of history. Not exactly an iron law, but humans have a tendency to move from conditions of less progress to conditions of more progress. And this in a nutshell, is the Left Hegelian notion of history.

So it is in this sense that Fukushima’s theory was a conceit. Fukushima wrote that history was over, that is, we are stuck with capitalist economics, preferably of the neoliberal form, despite the fact that it is a backwards, primitive, inefficient, irrational and profoundly immoral system. The Left notion of history holds that humans have a natural tendency to move from more backwards, primitive, irrational and immoral systems towards systems that are more progressive, advanced, rational and moral.

Humans have not changed one bit. The human race has not decided to become reactionaries overnight. We continue to move towards progress on many fronts. There is no reason to think that justice and fairness minded humans will settle for the insanity and deeply unfair system of neoliberal capitalism. Nothing changed suddenly in 1990. Clocks did not stop or start working backwards. Life goes on.

We continue our walk through life, one step at a time, always forwards, never resting and not one step back.

Such is the essential human condition.

Real Revolution Versus Fake Revolution

The Syrian Revolution as fake revolution.

I honestly do not think much of this Syrian revolution. Almost all of the revolutionaries are Sunni Muslim Arabs. Few to none of them are Shia, Alawite or Druze Arabs. There are almost no Christians in the ranks. And there are few to no Kurds in the ranks. In fact, the revolutionaries are hostile to all of these groups last time I checked. That’s why those other groups are not signing up. There have been many attacks on Syrian Christians, Shia and Alawites by the revolutionaries. Many from these groups have been kidnapped, beaten, tortured and murdered.

In a city of 50,000, all of the Christians were ethnically cleansed from the city. They received a “leave or die” order from the rebels. Many Syrian churches have been blown up or damaged by the rebels. The Druze are not signing up for the fight, and the Sunni Muslim rebels may not like the Druze very much. No doubt they see them as some sort of heretics or possibly even infidels.

The Syrian Kurds do not like the regime very much, as the regime has not been too kind to them to put it mildly. However, the regime made some huge concessions to the Kurds in recent days, and the regime has now vacated the Kurdish area and the Kurds are more or less in control of their own part of Syria. Why the regime vacated the area, I am not sure, but the Kurds are hostile to the rebels and maybe the regime just felt that the area was not worth fighting for.

A political party which is frankly the Syrian arm of the Turkish PKK has now taken over that part of Syria. The result is that Turkey has threatened to attack and occupy that part of Syria as it is serving as some sort of a PKK base. These threats have not been carried out. The Kurdish government in Iraq has refused to support their brethren in Syria as they are seen as too close to the PKK, and the Iraqi Kurds want to distance themselves from the PKK. The best description of the Syrian Kurds at this point would be to say that they are hostile to both the regime and the rebels. The rebels do not like the Kurds because the Sunni Arab rebels are Arab nationalists and see the Kurds as secessionists.

The revolution has a strongly Islamist character and has had it from the very start. Al Qaeda type groups now form a large part of the rebels. Al Qaeda types from Iraq and hardline Islamists from around the Arab world are going to Syria to fight in the “jihad.” It’s a jihad because they are fighting against the Alawi, who are seen as heretics by many Sunni Muslims. The fight is being manipulated from abroad. The rebels get much of their money and arms from Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The Gulf Arabs hate the Syrian regime because it is made up of Alawites, who they see as heretics.

Turkey has also helped the rebels a lot for reasons that are not clear. However, they are Sunni Islamists who have an Alawi type group in their country that they don’t treat very well. Turkey is also trying to be seen as the light among Sunni Muslims and is attempting to gain points with them that way. The United Snakes is also involved because Syria is one of the pillars of the resistance front against the Zionist regime in Israel. Syria and Iran along with Hezbollah and Hamas make up the resistance front at the moment, although the Egyptian regime may be leaning in that direction. Lebanon is also a sworn enemy of Israel, but they are usually not thought of as part of the resistance front.

Iran is listed because they support Hezbollah and Hamas with arms. The Syrian regime helps ferret those arms from Iran to Hezbollah and also gives Hezbollah a lot of arms of its own. In addition, Syria is still a sworn enemy of Israel because Israel occupies Syrian land in the Golan Heights. It’s also said that Syria supports Hamas, but all they do is give refuge to their leaders. Qatar also gives refuge to Hamas leaders and no one talks about that.

Israel also continues to occupy Lebanese territory in the Shebaa Farms and makes all sorts of phony excuses as to why they can’t give it back. One of the excuses is that the land is really Syrian, but Syria says that even if that is true, they don’t want the land, and Lebanon can have it. Israel is such a disgusting country! This occupation is the stated reason for Hezbollah continuing existence. I really don’t see why Israel doesn’t give the land back to Lebanon to get rid of Hezbollah. I don’t get it.

It is true that another issue is three Lebanese villages that Israel conquered in 1948. Israel invaded far south Lebanon during this war and conquered three villages. They ordered all of the Shia Muslims out at gunpoint, and they went to Lebanon as refugees. I am not sure of their status now. The towns are now 100% full of Israeli Jews. Lebanon says she wants those towns back.

If the Syrian regime can be removed, one leg of the Syria – Iran – Hezbollah axis can be eliminated. The new regime will be Sunni Muslim and will be hostile to both Iran and Hezbollah since Iran and Hezbollah have both helped the regime during the war. They would have been hostile to them anyway though because Sunni Muslims in that region are notorious Shia-haters and both the Syrian and Iranian regimes are Shia.

With the new regime in power, Iran would no longer be able to supply Hezbollah via Syria. She might be able to supply them directly, but that might be pretty difficult. Iran would then be even more isolated in the region. Without the support of its main patron, Hezbollah may wither on the vine. Hezbollah has currently moved into Syria to protect some Syrian Shia villages on the border. The Syrian rebels have ordered the Shia residents and Hezbollah both to evacuate these villages. They refused to leave, and there has been some heavy fighting in the area lately. There have been many reports that Iran has advisers in Syria helping the regime. The reports have been hard to validate, but they are probably true.

So the whole reason for the US supporting Syria is part and parcel of US support for the Zionist regime in Israel. It’s just more “USraeli” foreign policy (the two countries can be seen as one merged entity that I call “USreal”).

Some Saturday Thoughts on the Jews

A Jewish visitor writes:

Robert:

I’ve read a lot on your blog and I appreciate that you can talk about race, ethnicity, Jewishness, and Zionism without necessarily being racist and anti-Semitic. I think one of the reasons why there is no discourse on Israeli policies in the U.S. is because, as you pointed out, the people who tend to be anti-Zionist also tend to have outright anti-Semitic views, which to us Jews is frightening.

But a few thoughts: when you say “holocaust porn” that’s a little bit offensive. It’s one thing to claim that we still perpetuate a victim mentality despite being successful, but out of respect to the survives and the 5.7 million slain and those who survived, you shouldn’t make a joke of what happened.

When you talk about the influence of Jews in the politico-economic and media spheres, I think what you have to say isn’t too far off, but that the “tribal mentality” and “ethnocentrism” happens on an individual level rather than a group conspiracy. I know a lot of prominent Jews and I can swear there are no secret synagogue meetings in which we malevolently plot to hurt gentiles.

It’s just that from a young age we’ve been taught that yes, we consider ourselves special, and that as a people, we should look out for one another. This may be a form of ethnocentrism, but as you yourself as stated, you take pride in being white, so why shouldn’t we take pride in being Jewish?

I also wonder what your theories as to Jews’ relatedness to the rest of the Caucasian population. Jews suppress white nationalism because it often turns populations against us, and until ’48, we had no place to go.

Ashkenazic Jews look white and resemble their European populations because of intermarriage. But we were told we were “Semitic” and “non-Aryan” and thus non-desirable to White nationalists. Yet recent DNA tests have shown that the Y-chromosomes of Ashkenazic Jews (these lines were generally unbroken) are closest genetically to Greeks and Italians, which maybe hints that we share a common pre-Indo-European (maybe Hittite?) ancestor.

Does this make any sense, and would this mean that Jews should stop advancing our own interests and instead join forces with our fellow white populations? I do think that the sense of Jewish victim mentality is calming with my generation and that besides intermarrying, we’re much cooler-headed on other Jewish issues.

I also read somewhere (maybe on the Occidental Observer) that the Jewish drive and Protestant work ethic have converged in America so that we find ourselves fighting on the same side as our Caucasian brethren against radical Islam and China. So maybe perhaps there is hope for Western Civilization, and perhaps some of that hope lies with the Jews.

First of all, welcome to the site! Jews are always welcome to this website.

As far as his first sentence goes, that’s one of the main things I am trying to do on this site.

Jewish ethnocentrism becomes a problem when they discriminate against non-Jews in hiring, promoting and whatnot. That’s not ok. It’s also pretty sickening that the Jews who helped write the Civil Rights Act tried to make it so Jews could continue to discriminate without running afoul of the Act.

There are some anti-Zionists who are not anti-Semitic, but as they get deeper and deeper into it, many anti-Zionists just get worse and worse that way. Also, anti-Semitic stuff is always infiltrating anti-Zionist sites in all sorts of ways. Of course, the Zionist folks who are acting like such bastards over there are indeed a bunch of Jews, and their crappy behavior is all wrapped up in Judaism and Jewish culture.

Nevertheless, US Jews are not stealing Palestinian land, beating up their kids and whatnot, so why not let them off the hook? Any chance I can get to take the non anti-Semitic side, I will gladly do that. We can blame US Jews for supporting Israel to the hilt, but then many Gentiles are supporting them to the hilt too, so it’s not fair to single out US Jews for this abuse.

Truth is that a lot of countries around the world act just as shitty as Israel, and a lot of their co-ethnics in the US support the crappy behavior of their co-ethnics abroad, so there’s nothing unusual about Jews and their ethnocentrism and tribalism.

One problem with Jewish ethnocentrism is that, in a word, that is what all the horrors of Zionism are all about. Zionism is simply Jewish ethnocentrism writ large and encompassed in an entire state and society. It’s Jewish ethnocentrism on steroids. And the most ethnocentric of US Jews are also the “Jewiest” (the most unpleasant to us Gentiles in their stereotypical ways) and also, surprise, surprise, they are also the most Zionist!

The Y-DNA probably comes from the early migrations of the Israelites after the fall of the temple in 0-500 AD. The first places they went to after leaving Israel were places like Greece and Italy.

My understanding is that there is a also a strong line in the Ashk Jews that is related to Kurds, Turks and Armenians. These are probably the ancient roots of the Jewish people, a Semitic people from northern Iraq. Semitic in language, Anatolian in genes. If you look at Armenian people, you will often notice that they look a lot like Ashk Jews. Look at them closely!

Joining forces with your fellow Whites is probably a good idea. Jews always oppose White interests because they think it will lead to some form of White nationalism or White ethnic nationalism which historically turns on the Jews as aliens and non-Whites or non-ethnics. Certainly Jewish movements against White interests dredge up a whole lot of antisemitism among a certain segment of the population. But one might argue that the type of White who gets so upset about these Jewish behaviors doesn’t like Jews much anyway, and even if Jews stopped their nonsense tomorrow, these ethnocentric Whites would just fish around and find some other reason to hate the Jews.

I really believe that these folks need to hate the Jews for some reason, and I am not sure that there is anything that Jewish people can do to win your favor. At some point, you just have to write certain folks off as lost causes.

The new generation of young Jews is ok. I don’t mind them too much. The problem once again is anti-Semitism. As soon as any significant anti-Semitism gets riled up in US society, those very well-behaved Jews will quickly become the Jewiest Jews you have ever met. Besides being anti-humane, anti-Semitism is bad for the Jews in other ways. It tends to bring out the worst most stereotypical behaviors in Jews, which of course causes even more anti-Semitism, which makes Jews act even Jewier, which causes more anti-Semitism, well, you get the picture. You probably know how this story ends, too, and it’s not a pretty picture.

True the Jews are lining up with White interests somewhat against China and against radical Islam. However, most Jews don’t care about China. Only Jewish neocons want to fight China. And I don’t think most Whites care about China either. Yes there is a marriage of interests against Islam or against radical Islam as you put it, between the Jews and the rest of US Whites. This is not a very pretty marriage though. A lot these folks make no distinction between Islam and radical Islam. To them, all Muslims are radical.