Category Archives: Europe

Lawmakers Call To Set Up American Lie Machine to Counter Russian Lie Machine

Dueling lie machines, wonderful. Apparently we are going to counter their lies with our own lies.

That the Russian machine even lies a lot is dubious.

Russian “lies”:

Ukraine is run by Nazis – True.

Crimea was annexed in a popular uprising – Sort of, at any rate, it had popular support. Repeated polls show ~87% for the Russian takeover. In other words, the vast majority of the population supported it at the time and continues to support it.

Germany is a failed state – False.

In a lot of cases, the Russian “lies” are just Russia telling the truth about what is going on over there, while the Western “truth” is what is a bunch of lies. I’ve been monitoring this war for a long time now, and I do not see a lot of out and out lying coming out of the Russians. I do see a lot coming out of the West though.

The EU is pushing back with a plan to launch a “mythbusters” task force to challenge Kremlin claims that it is anti-Russian.

The EU is virulently, viciously anti-Russian.

NATO, which the pro-Moscow media has accused of driving the conflict in Ukraine to undermine Russia, has established an information centre in Latvia with a similar goal.

It is driving the conflict in Ukraine to undermine Russia and it is ferociously anti-Russian.

Voice of America was accused of being a propaganda tool, in part because it was directed against the US’s enemies and spawned stations such as Radio Marti, aimed at Cuba. Its journalists insisted that they maintained editorial independence.

This is comical. VoA was always a virulent propaganda organ and it still is to this very day. It is almost worthless to read it. Its journalists do not maintain editorial independence, but then no MSM journalists have editorial independence. If you are an MSM journalist and you try to maintain editorial independence, you will quickly be out of a job.

Since the end of the cold war, VoA has suffered budget cuts. Congress is seeking to redefine its role to make it explicitly broadcast in support of US foreign policy.

In other words, they are trying to make VoA just like all the rest of the US media, 100% of which supports US foreign policy. VoA already bellows supports US foreign policy just like every other US media outlet.

The British regulator, Ofcom, has found RT in breach of its rules on impartiality.

That’s rich! Russia Today is far less propagandistic than any mainstream media outlet in the UK, including the insanely propagandistic and dishonest Guardian which ran this article.

2 Comments

Filed under Eurasia, Europe, Journalism, Regional, Russia, Ukraine, USA, War

Lousy Idea

Liberland, world’s first Libertarian country. It’s founded by a Czech political party that won zero votes in both the Czech Senate and Chamber of Deputies. Yep, they didn’t even win one single seat in the Czech Congress. They do hold one seat in the European Parliament, 1 out of the 21 assigned to the Czech Republic. In other words, they are losers.

The party is like the US Libertarian Party and promotes Austrian economics, minimal taxation, regulation and government.

On the other hand, maybe it is not such a bad idea. Maybe we can get lots of reactionaries to move there and get them out of our countries.

Liberland presently has zero residents. There is one abandoned home in the country and it is falling apart. The only road is in poor shape. The entire area is covered in forest. Apparently the only freedom lovers there at the moment are the wild animals.

4 Comments

Filed under Czechoslovakia, Economics, Europe, Government, Libertarianism, Losers, Political Science, Politics, Regional

“The Trouble With Henry Cabot Lodge,” by Nominay

This article is by Nominay, a veteran commentator at Beyond Highbrow. He has his own site where he posts mainly about the JFK assassination but also on current events and in defense of liberalism generally. His blog is called The Endangered Left. This piece originally appeared there.

Did the tentacles of the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy reach into the State Department? Unfortunately, I harbor suspicions that Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. was involved. As JFK’s 11th hour Ambassador to South Vietnam, Lodge joined the Kennedy administration just in time to make matters worse for that country. Kennedy is often blamed, and rightly so, for the lukewarm consent he gave for President Diem to be overthrown in a coup, but the manner in which his consent was brought about, and what was done with that consent once it was given, was used against Kennedy by his own representatives at State. Chief among them was Henry Cabot Lodge, who worked in concert with the CIA division in Saigon.

What Kennedy knew to some extent in the lead up up to Diem’s assassination was that Lodge and the CIA had flattened the flexibility he sought for his options to remain open. As Kennedy had seen it, there was still a slight chance that diplomatic relations between his administration and Diem’s could be restored, and there was no apparent leader to succeed Diem who offered any hope for an improvement. Kennedy resorted to threatening Diem with a pull out of US troops in South Vietnam in order to bring him back in line with the US effort there, but also to save Diem from his own government.

He wanted a coup to be avoided if a way to reverse Diem’s declining popularity and support was possible. Still, Kennedy had not opposed a coup however, which, per assurances given to him, would see Diem upon resignation being provided safe passage out of the Presidential palace and into exile.

As hopelessly divided as the Kennedy administration was over how to “govern” South Vietnam, Kennedy liked Diem personally and had known him since 1951. As a Congressman, JFK visited Vietnam to learn more about the fight there against the communists, when the struggle belonged to France. Now, in 1963, with the US having replaced France, Kennedy was trying to use his insight from that failed, foreign intervention to determine the best action to take in what was precipitously becoming a confusing quagmire.

These problems with South Vietnam had always discouraged Kennedy from widening a US presence there the way nearly his entire administration wanted, which was a full scale war upwards of 210,000 troops. Kennedy refused to entertain the idea of an engagement anywhere close to this magnitude no matter what the conditions on the ground were. Even as he gave the order to increase more military advisers there, Kennedy was demanding from his top brass that they provide him with a withdrawal plan that included a tight timetable.

Once he became US Ambassador to South Vietnam, it didn’t take long for Henry Cabot Lodge to decide that he just wanted Diem gone and for the US to engage more militarily. Convinced that a more robust front against the communists and better treatment of the South Vietnamese people by its leaders was the solutions to their problems, Lodge saw Diem as the obstacle to his vision of some kind of victory.

But Lodge made his biggest difference for the Kennedy administration before he even joined it. At the end of 1962, just when National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy was fleshing out his ideas for a diplomatic approach to Cuba with President Kennedy, Lodge – who learned about this from an official who worked closely with Bundy – told a lawyer affiliated with an anti-Castro Cuban committee that JFK was seeking to normalize relations with Cuba. In other words – peace with Castro – not overthrow Castro.

This of course was a total reversal from the intent in 1961 with the Bay of Pigs invasion, and the subsequent sabotage campaign of Cuba’s military resources, along with hair-brained attempts to assassinate Castro. This lawyer friend of Lodge’s in turn told a leading Cuban exile militant sponsored by the CIA named Felipe Vidal Santiago. Naturally, Santiago was beside himself with rage as were his fellow, rebel soldiers. This info undoubtedly upset their CIA handlers as well.

Lodge’s credibility to Castro’s enemies as a reliable informant rested on his esteemed career and pedigree. The grandson and namesake of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and the descendant of three, other US Senators, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. was elected first as a Massachusetts Congressman, then as a Senator himself in 1944. A leader of his party, Lodge, in 1952, drafted 5 star General and World War II hero Dwight Eisenhower to run for President, and served as his campaign manager. Although Lodge lost his Senate seat that year to John F. Kennedy, his stint as a recruiter and campaign manager succeeded in electing the general President. Lodge then served as Ambassador to the United Nations in Eisenhower’s cabinet for 7 years.

Lodge’s temperament in the arena of international politics during this time, is telling. As noted in Wikipedia:

…Lodge supported the Cold War policies of the Eisenhower Administration, and often engaged in debates with the UN representatives of the Soviet Union. During the CIA sponsored overthrowing of the legitimate Guatemalan Government, when Britain and France became concerned about the US being involved in the aggression, Lodge threatened to withdraw US support to Great Britain on Egypt and Cyprus, and France on Tunisia and Morocco, unless they backed the US in their action.

When the Government was overthrown, the United Fruit Company [a CIA front] re-established itself in Guatemala. These episodes tainted an otherwise distinguished career [up to that point] and painted Lodge as a face of US Imperialism.”

Lodge returned to electoral politics in 1960 as Richard Nixon’s running mate, losing again to Kennedy in a close election. Lodge somehow ingratiated himself to his opponent, the victor, however, and by 1963 was a fox lying in wait to guard a hen house in the Kennedy administration.

Lodge of course was a very intelligent and savvy man. He had to know the implications of declassifying such a sensitive, working policy of Kennedy’s to a close associate of Cuban radicals who were working in concert with the CIA to assassinate Castro. Lodge’s disclosure of a possible diplomatic restoration with Cuba was an irresponsible breach of the highest order, and it probably led to his back channel on the plan to kill JFK. In this context it is easier to understand Lodge’s hubris defying JFK’s instructions on relations with Diem and other Vietnam-related directives. JFK thought that Lodge would not survive his position as Ambassador, but instead, it was Kennedy who would not survive to replace Lodge.

Strategist Roger Stone has been involved in national political campaigns since the late 1960’s. At age 16 he was tapped by Connecticut Governor John Davis Lodge (Henry Cabot Lodge’s brother) to run the state’s “Youth For Nixon” organization. A prodigy campaign worker with a talent for dirty tricks, Stone was ingratiating himself to major players in the Republican party when he was barely out of his teens. By his mid-20’s he was a trusted confidant to President Nixon … and of his longtime mentor, John Davis Lodge.

In Stone’s best selling book The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, he recalls part of a conversation he had with Davis Lodge that is at once outrageous and chilling:

In 1979, we sat in his Westport, Connecticut home enjoying a cocktail. I knew that JFK had planned to fire ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge upon his return from Texas on November 24, 1963. I also know that Lodge knew why he had been summoned to see the President. I couldn’t resist asking John Lodge about his brother.

“Did you ever ask your brother who really killed Kennedy?” I said.

His lips spread into a tight grin. “Cabot said it was the Agency boys, some Mafiosi.” He looked me in the eye. “And Lyndon.”

“Did your brother know in advance?” I asked.

Lodge took a sip of his Manhattan. “He knew Kennedy wouldn’t be around to fire him. LBJ kept him at his post so he could serve his country.”

In his renowned book JFK and the Unspeakable, author James Douglass adds content confirming what Kennedy’s intentions were on this issue from another vantage point. In it, Douglass writes:

JFK’s death in Dallas preempted several decisions he was ready to make in Washington the following week. The first was the question of how to deal with his rebellious ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, who wanted to escalate and “win” the war the president had decided to withdraw from.

Robert Kennedy has commented on his brother’s loss of patience with an ambassador who would not carry out his instructions, or even give him the courtesy of a response to those instructions:

“The individual who forced our position at the time of Vietnam was Henry Cabot Lodge. In fact, Henry Cabot Lodge was being brought back – and the President discussed with me in detail how he could be fired – because he wouldn’t communicate in any way with us … The President would send out messages, and he would never really answer them … [Lodge] wouldn’t communicate. It was an impossible situation during that period of time.”

According to RFK, the President in consultation with the Attorney General had already made the decision to fire Lodge: “We were trying to figure out how to get rid of Henry Cabot Lodge.” It was only a matter of “trying to work out how he could be fired, how we could get rid of him.”

President Kennedy was scheduled to meet with Lodge on Sunday afternoon, November 24, as soon as JFK returned from his trip to Texas, and Lodge from his post in Vietnam. Kennedy had prepared for his encounter with Lodge by inviting to it a strong dissenter to the Vietnam War, Under Secretary of State George Ball. He talked to Ball by phone on Wednesday night, November 20, right after the White House reception for the judiciary, making sure that the most anti-war member of his administration would attend the Sunday meeting with Lodge.

It was his successor as president, Lyndon B. Johnson, who instead presided over the Sunday, November 24, meeting with Henry Cabot Lodge.

Before this meeting occurred however (and before John F. Kennedy would be assassinated), Lodge had another meeting to attend – in Honolulu while en route to DC – on November 20-21. It was just after this Honolulu conference to discuss Vietnam with other administration officials that Cabot Lodge was observed in a peculiar scene:

“In Hawaii on Nov. 21/63…shortly after lunch Honolulu time, U.S.Ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge made a long distance call from the lobby of the Royal Hawaiian Hotel…This distinguished diplomat had access to phones in privacy from his room or the military circuits at no cost…yet he was seen, according to the Honolulu Star Bulletin, with a stack of quarters in his hand putting coin after coin into a pay phone…

Lodge was the only person of the seven member policy-making body to stay at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel…the others stayed in the military quarters.” *

Henry Cabot Lodge deserves further scrutiny as a character in this saga of assassination and conspiracy. He was detrimental to JFK’s safety by putting him on disastrous terms with the Central Intelligence Agency, over Cuba. Lodge’s role was unique in providing the CIA with the impetus to kill the President. Kennedy’s adversaries within the government, chiefly at the CIA and Pentagon, had a commitment to win the cold war at all costs. This is not just the view of conspiracy theorists, but also of multiple, government insiders, including JFK’s very own pick to represent him at brokering a peace deal with Castro – William Atwood. In Anthony Summer’s book Not In Your Lifetime, he quotes former UN Ambassador Atwood, as saying:

“If the CIA did find out what we were doing [talks toward normalizing relations with Cuba]…they might have been impelled to take violent action. Such as assassinating the President.”

What we’ve since learned from Summer’s interview with Atwood however is that the CIA did find out what they were doing…and we know how the agency found out, and from whom.

Et tu, Henry? Fox in the henhouse: Henry Cabot Lodge,   A saboteur in the Kennedy State Department.

Et tu, Henry? Fox in the henhouse: Henry Cabot Lodge, A saboteur in the Kennedy State Department.

8 Comments

Filed under Americas, Asia, Asian, Britain, Caribbean, Cold War, Cuba, Democrats, Europe, France, Geopolitics, Government, History, Latin America, Military Doctrine, Modern, Politics, Regional, Republicans, SE Asia, SE Asian, The Americas, US, US Politics, Vietnam, Vietnam War, War

We Are Fighting for Freedom and Democracy in Ukraine

Here.

Some democracy. They’ve been murdering the opposition since the Maidan. But I thought it was Russia that was the dictatorship and Ukraine that was the democracy. US and British advisors are in Ukraine right now training the Nazi army. Boy, the West just can’t get enough of their Nazi pals, can they?

1 Comment

Filed under Britain, Crime, Eurasia, Europe, Journalism, Regional, Russia, Ukraine, USA, War

The Jewish Languages of the Jewish Diaspora

Sam asks:

Robert I should have asked you this before but I had forgotten it. This post jogged my memory. I read once…somewhere…that all Jewish languages were bastardizations of whatever language they were using at the time. The idea being that they could converse amongst themselves without others knowing what they are saying. Seems also the way they transformed the language was supposed to be a bit tricky so as to make it even harder to understand. Does that sound as if that scenario is true or could be true?

I am not sure if they did it on purpose so as not to be understood or if their versions are bastardizations (a term we linguists do not use) of the native tongue, but in just about every nation in which Jews were living in a large number, the Jews were speaking a different language than the natives. In Europe, the Ashkenazim were speaking Yiddish in the north and the Sephardics were speaking Ladino in the South. In the Crimea, the Karaite Jews spoke Ukrainian Karaim and other Jews spoke Krypchak, both of which are closely related to but not the same language as Crimean Tatar. In other parts of Ukraine and in Lithuania and Poland, other Jews also spoke Lithuanian Karaim, a different language from Ukrainian Karaim.

In the Arab World, in each nation where the Arab Jews reside, they speak a different form of Arabic than the natives, for instance, Moroccan Jews might have spoken something called Moroccan Jewish Arabic instead of Moroccan Arabic. They also spoke their own forms of Aramaic where they were living with a lot of Arab Christians in the north of Iraq, Syria and Iran. The Jewish language often had many Hebrew loans in it and was different in other ways. In each case, Ethnologue regards the Jewish language as actually a separate language from the native tongue of the land.

In Northern Europe, Jews took Palatinian German and fashioned a new Jewish language out of it. In the South, they did the same with Spanish. In Ukraine, the Jews melded Crimean Tatar into three separate Jewish languages. In the Arab Muslim and Arab Christian worlds, the Jews took the common and Arabic or Aramaic languages of those lands and fashioned them into separate Jewish languages.

It seems as though everywhere they lived, the Jews desired to be different and set themselves apart from the rest, even in a linguistic sense.

N.B. Most of these Jewish languages are now in very bad shape and by the year 2100, most will probably be extinct with the probable exception of Yiddish and Lithuanian Karaim.

3 Comments

Filed under Africa, Afroasiatic, Altaic, Arabic, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Crimean Tatar, Culture, Europe, Europeans, German, Germanic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Jews, Kipchak, Language Families, Linguistics, Lithuania, Middle East, Morocco, North Africa, Poland, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Semitic, Sociolinguistics, Turkic, Ukraine

Israel’s Dark Future: Democracy in the Jewish State is Doomed

Here.

Everything in this article is 100% correct, and the future as predicted in the article looks to be set in stone and there is nothing that can be done about it. Both strategies, that of the Right and that of the Left, are probably doomed. The strategy of the Right is to ignore Israel’s bad behavior and continue to support them come Hell or high water. This will simply embolden the Israeli Right into believing that they can do whatever they want to and there will be no consequences. The strategy of the Left is to punish Israel slowly and by this punishment, they will force Israel to settle the conflict. This also is unlikely to work as the Israeli Right will just dig in their heels and conclude that the whole world hates Israel. They frame this belief on the notion that the whole world is made up of Gentiles and that Gentiles hate Jews, have always hated Jews and will always hate Jews. Gentile hatred for Jews is apparently constitutional. As was said about the Poles, the Pole learns anti-Semitism at his mother’s breast. Israel Jews see Gentiles as nearly emerging from the womb as full-blown anti-Semites.

There is not much you can say to someone who insists that you hate them or that almost everyone hates them. You can continue to insist that you do not really hate the person, but the person will never believe you. You can tell them that most people actually don’t hate them at all, but their mind is already made up. Once the Jews decide that you are anti-Semite, whether innocent or not – and 90% of those accused of anti-Semitism are innocent – you will never be able to argue your way out of it. The Jews will continue to insist that you hate them until their dying day. All contrary evidence will be ignored and the Jews will always dig up old comments to “prove your hatred.” Suppose your friends and lovers were always data-mining your relationships for “proof of your hatred.” Most of us have said nasty things to our friends and especially our lovers. But insults and criticism in a relationship is not proof of hatred. Perhaps it is a sign of hatred; perhaps it is not. In life, many people who love you the most, more than almost anyone will ever love you in this world, will end up saying some pretty awful things to you. That doesn’t mean that they hate you. It just means that they care and that human relationships, friendships and love affairs are not simple things.

Once the Jews decide that the world hates the Jews because the world is made up of ugly anti-Semite Nazis, there is not much the world can do to disabuse the Jews of this delusion. The Jews will simply embrace their pariah state and conclude that the reason for it is simple anti-Semitic bigotry and not Jewish bad behavior. At any rate, many Jews live to be hated and love to be hated. The worst thing you can do to a Jew is take away his sense of victimhood. This is nearly more precious to him than his soul, and the Jew will nearly kill to retain his eternal sense of victimization.

There are logical reasons for this. Once anti-Semitism disappears, the Jews go too. The Jews only exist due to anti-Semitism. And anti-Semitism, as long as it is not too deadly, generally serves to strengthen the Jews by enabling them to circle the wagons, refuse to assimilate or marry out or move to the biggest Jewish ghetto ever created in the Levant. The more you persecute them, the more they get paranoid and hostile and band together against everyone else. And the more you hate and persecute Jews, the worse they act. Anti-Semitism tends to bring out the ghetto in any Jew. And Israel is an example of a modification of the old saw that you can take the Jew out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the Jew.

At any rate, the future in the land of Palestine/Israel looks utterly hopeless for those who side with justice, peace or the Palestinians. There literally is no future there, or there is only a future that will get worse and worse. I am looking down that tunnel, squinting, and I swear that all I see is black. It’s a black tunnel with no end that seems to go on forever or at least into the forseeable future. Tomorrow – and all of the tomorrows ahead as far as we can see – is looking pretty bleak in the Holy Land.

7 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Arabs, Britain, Conservatism, Democrats, Europe, Government, History, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jewish Racism, Jews, Left, Middle East, Middle Eastern, Modern, Obama, Palestine, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, Social Problems, Sociology, The Jewish Question, US Politics, USA, War, Zionism

The Jews of Smyrna, 1840

Smyrna is a city on the Aegean Coast of Turkey in the present day province of Izmir. It was mostly ruled by a succession of Greek empires until it was conquered by the Ottomans in 1330. Soon after, the Knights of Saint John, a Catholic military order, reconquered most of the city for the Christians. At this time, the northern part of the city was ruled by the Turks and the southern half by the Christians. In 1402, Timur or Tamberlane, a Mongol associated with Genghis Khan, invaded the city and killed almost everyone in it.

Soon after, it was conquered again by the Ottomans. The city was mostly Greek at this time. In fact, it was so Greek that the Turks called it Gavur Izmir or Smyrna of the Infidels.

After WW1, the Treaty of Serves assigned the city to Greece and the Greek government occupied the city in 1919. The Greco-Turkish War started the same year and lasted until 1922. At the end of the war, Ataturk’s Turkish army entered the city and set it on fire, killing 55,000 Greek and Armenian Christians. This could probably be considered to be a part of the Armenian and Greek Genocides that the Turks committed around this time. The Greek Genocide is little known, but during this period, the Turks killed 250,000 Greeks and all Greeks were ethnically cleansed from Turkey. Much the same happened to the Turks of Greece and the result of these genocides was called “the population transfer.”

Here is a note from a British traveler who visited Smyrna in 1840:

The Jews of Smyrna are poor, and having little merchandise of their own to dispose of, they are sadly importunate in offering their services as intermediaries: their troublesome conduct has led to the custom of beating them in the open streets. It is usual for Europeans to carry long sticks with them for the express purpose of keeping off the chosen people. I always felt ashamed to strike the poor fellows myself, but I confess to the amusement with which I witnessed the observance of this custom by other people.

The Jew seldom got hurt much for he was always expecting the blow and was ready to recede from it the moment it came: one could not help being rather gratified at seeing him bound away so nimbly with his long robes floating out in the air and then again wheel round and return with fresh importunities.

Alexander William Kinglake- Eōthen, or Traces of Travel Brought Home from the East, 1845.

The antisemites seem to think that this behavior is a-ok. This sort of thing just does not seem right. It looks like bullying. And it appears that Greek Christians were doing it for the most part, not Muslims. So the Jews were annoying – so what? You don’t beat annoying people with sticks. The Jews have some legitimate beefs with European Christians.

6 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Armenians, Catholicism, Christianity, Europe, European, Europeans, Greece, Greeks, History, Jews, Near Easterners, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Turkey, Turks, War

Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden

Here.

Even after they transition, they are still seriously nuts. Apparently the argument is that they are even more nuts before they transition, so transitioning is good for them in a sense.

How about preventing it in the first place? There is no evidence whatsoever that the rate of transsexualism is constant around the world.

Surely if it is biological, there must have been vast numbers of transsexuals in the past. Since transsexualism causes horrific mental illness, depression and suicidality, surely we would have heard about in our records of the past. Europe at least kept excellent records in at least the last 500 years. Prior to that, there is always folklore and the wisdom of the ancients.

Yet we move around the world doing ethnographic studies and nowhere do we find tribes discussing the disastrous predicament of the transsexual. Note that if transsexualism is real, it would have existed in high numbers. Recent studies say 1/300 persons is a transsexual and transsexual feelings, transient or otherwise, are present in 2-3% of university students in China, not exactly a hotbed of Cultural Left nuttiness.

Why do we never hear of transsexuals in the written history, folklore or ancient wisdom of cultures around the world? Probably because the notion that transsexualism itself is a biological disorder with high prevalence through time and space is itself highly suspect.

If indeed there were transsexuals in the past all around the world all down through time, they must have been able to accommodate their disorder well, if they even had it at all. Since transitioning was not possible nor was it possible to pretend you are the opposite sex, if transsexualism existed in the past, most transsexuals probably just shrugged off their transsexual feelings and married and raised children like everyone else.

So even if there were “transsexuals” in the past, most of them seemed to have simply shrugged off their feelings as some odd quirk and went on to live normative cis-heterosexual lives.

The transsexual epidemic in the West has a definite feeling about it of being a manufactured issue. A lot of it appears to be simple faddism.

7 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Cultural, Europe, Medicine, Mental Illness, Operations, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychotherapy, Regional, Sex, Sociology, Sweden

Is Life in the First World Dependent on Imperialism?

Jason Y writes:

I can’t see an alternative where a “kind and gentle”, “non-exploitative” 1st world exists. The “easy life” of the 1st world is made possible only by empire, regardless of whether so called “Jews” run it, or not.

Does anyone want to debate this idea?

Look at Ancient Rome, Jews didn’t run it, yet it was incredibly viscous and cruel, as a successful empire is. I don’t think Jews ran ancient China, Mexico, or Japan, as they’re aren’t any there.

I do not know. Are Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, most of Europe part of some imperialist system that wants to control the world, become dictator of the world, and seeks total world hegemony where everyone must obey them. I do not see that they are. And they seem to have a lot of money. So it looks like life in the First World is not dependent on imperialism after all.

Canada, France and Spain do not very good, but they are not really part of some system that is trying to control the world. NATO only acts bad because all of NATO is run by the US. Europe only acts bad because all of Europe is a US colony that has to obey the US or else. Canada, France, Spain and most of Europe are not trying to run the world. In fact, the doctrine of US imperialism states that Europe is a competitor that must be sidelined and dominated by the US and that Europe cannot be allowed to get enough power to where they can challenge the US.

The Arab nations are very wealthy. Did they get that way by being dictator of the world? Hardly.

Yes there is foreign investment, but most of these countries do not push the Third World around very much. Spanish tries to bully some of its former colonies in Latin America, and France and Canada are very imperialist towards Haiti. France is also imperialist towards Lebanon, Syria and parts of Africa. But the French used to own all of these places. The French apparently still think they are a colonial power.

28 Comments

Filed under Americas, Asia, Colonialism, Europe, Imperialism, Latin America, Middle East, North America, Political Science, Regional, USA

Why America Is Cancer

Here.

George Friedman, Jew, psychopath, explains the psychopathic foreign policy goals of the Dictator of the World, America. Mr. Freeman is one of the men who run our foreign policy. Freeman is for all intents and purposes the voice of the CIA or better yet, the voice of the Deep State. Note the rank cynicism and viciousness of this man. The fact that he is a Jew is not surprising. There is no longer discrimination against Jews in America. On the contrary, Jews run the whole damn country.

17 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Antiquity, Asia, Britain, Colonialism, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Germany, Government, History, Imperialism, India, Iraq War, Military Doctrine, Political Science, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Republicans, Roman Empire, Russia, South Asia, The Jewish Question, Ukraine, US Politics, US War in Afghanistan, USA, USSR, War