Category Archives: Islam

Trench Warfare in East Ghouta

East Ghouta trench warfare. Good Lord that fighting looks brutal. Some truly vicious close-range trench warfare can be seen in this video. This what war looks like – the real thing. I will say that SAA and allied Palestinian, government and Arab Nationalist militias have very high morale from all the footage I have seen. It’s amazing as I am sure they are taking serious casualties. I saw a video today of a Syrian village of ~400 in 2011. 13% of its men were military age, and seven years later, almost all of them are dead, fighting for the government. Don’t let anyone fool you into thinking that the government forces are not taking serious casualties.

There is so much I could say about this operation. Let us just say that everything you are hearing in the US and Western media is completely biased and a lot of it is flat out lies. The civilians in the area largely support the Syrian Army and oppose the Al Qaeda-type rebels.

The rebels have been using East Ghouta for years as a base to shell Damascus. Damascus gets shelled almost every day for years now by these character. The mortars are usually just aimed at the city but in recent months a number have targeted the Russian Embassy and meeting between various Russians, military and aid organizations, in the area. It is thought that the rebels do not have the ability to target Russians with this accuracy. What is going on here is that US, Turkish, UAE, Qatari, Saudi, Jordanian and Israeli intelligence (mostly US) is working closely with the rebels in an effort to deliberately target Russians. So the US is actually killing Russians in Syria deliberately and has been doing so forever.

Mostly this shows the folly of pacifists or isolationists ever voting Republican. Republicans have been the party of the hawks ever since the Cold War and it hasn’t slowed down yet. Of course Trump shifted to ultra-hawk because he is a hard US conservative and almost all of these people are fanatical warmongers. The Republicans have been far more hawkish than the Democrats since 1946.

The Democrats may be the party of Humanitarian Bombers, but the Republicans don’t even pretend to that. Instead, it’s all about how many people you can kill, civilians or not. Civilian deaths in Syrian and Iraq skyrocketed after Trump “took the gloves off” (something Republicans always do – gloves are for soft Democratic girly men). Why was this a good thing? Why did Trump massacre all of these Syrian and Iraqi civilians and why are bloodthirsty Americans cheering for this slaughter?

When East Aleppo was liberated, there were intense negotiations at the end to rescue 12 US intelligence officers who were holed up with the Al Qaeda rebels until the bitter end. Websites even published the names of these men.

Here again, the Western media is screaming. Humanitarian corridors to evacuate civlians have been activated and regular aid convoys are getitng through. The strikes have been mostly surgical as in East Aleppo. The US is just freaking out because it’s Al Qaeda type jihadis are getting defeated in this Damascus suburb. The US wants to keep its jihadis in East Aleppo to rain mortars down on Damascus every day to show that Assad cannot even control his own capital. It’s mostly an appearances thing, but then appearances and symbolism play greater roles in warfare than most know.

There haven’t been any hospitals stricken in Ghouta. Remember when “the last hospital in East Aleppo” got destroyed 15-20 times over a period of months. It was always “the last hospital in Aleppo.” How many last hospitals in Aleppo were there? There can’t have been more than one. The artillery and airstrikes in Aleppo were mostly surgical. Many of the hospitals bombed had long since been taken over as rebel bases. This is something the US media never told you. Yes, some civilians are getting their property taken away from them, but that is because they supported the rebels. It has nothing to with ethnicity and there is no ethnic cleansing. Sunni Arabs who supported Assad are to some extent displacing Sunni Arabs who supported the rebels.

There was another false flag chemical weapons attack in Ghoutha earlier, championed by pathological liar Nicki Haley. Western officials warned of the attack earlier, a sure sign that this was another false flag. So far, all chemical weapons attacks in Syria have been rebel false flags. I have studied all of them, and I haven’t seen one attack by the Syrian government yet. The Syrian government simply does not use chemical weapons. It’s not that they are nice people. If you are a rebel or rebel supporter, you may be arrested and taken prisoner by the army and transferred to a military prison. The death rate is high in that prisoner and 10-15,000 prisoners may have already been executed, mostly by hanging. That said, chemical weapons and massacres of villagers are not the SAA’s style. They’re nasty, but they are just not that type of nasty.

Of course, a few days after the fake attack, the SAA liberated this Ghouta town and promptly discovered a chemical weapons factory.  The rebels had been producing their own chemicals and then releasing them in false flag attacks as they have been doing since the start of the war. Even the US military now admits that most if not all of the chemical weapons attacks in this war so far  were not  done by the Syrian government. Amazing – the military tells the  truth where the controlled (US Pravda) media  never does.

Ghouta is 70% cleared. Many rebels have left on buses to be bussed to other rebel zones,mostly in Idlib. A number of others have taken advantage of an amnesty program that has been offered by the government for years now. Today, 10,000 civilians fled to safety via a humanitarian corridor. The rebels have been firing at these corridors for some time now, shooting at civilians who are trying to flee. A number have been killed in this way.

1 Comment

Filed under Arabs, Conservatism, Democrats, Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Jordan, Journalism, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Palestine, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Islam, Religion, Republicans, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sunnism, Syria, Turkey, US Politics, USA, War

The Coming War on Lebanon: Israel, Saudi Arabia, and U.S. Prepare Long-Planned Middle East War

Great article from Global Research. I am not sure if this war is actually going to happen. Israel’s apparent causus belli for the war is because they say that Iran has built a missile factory in Lebanon. Iran has indeed built a missile factory in Lebanon. I am not sure where it is and why Israel cannot take it out. Maybe it is underground. I would guess that it is in the Bekaa Valley.

The missile count for Hezbollah is not correct. Hezbollah actually 150,000 missiles aimed at Israel. There are reports that only six of those are precision-guided, but that is not correct. I don’t know how many precision-guided missiles they have, but they have a lot more than six.

The Lebanese Army is not very good. The effective army of Lebanon is Hezbollah. That is why they had 85% support in a recent poll in Lebanon. A recent move by Hezbollah to consolidate power among itself and its allies in the Parliament actually had the support of 47% of Lebanese Christians. Hezbollah is in an alliance with, among others, General Aoun’s Christian faction. As you can see, Lebanon is a lot more complex than Christians versus Muslims. 

The real enemies of Hezbollah are the Lebanese Sunnis around President Hariri. Recently he went to Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis, with a go-ahead from the US, actually kidnapped him and forced him to stay in Arabia. They also demanded that he resign from the Presidency. He resigned so they would let him go, but when he got back to Lebanon, he withdrew his resignation and once again assumed his position.

The Saudis think that Lebanon is their bitch, but they are wrong. The Hariri faction does not have wide support in Lebanon – maybe 20-25% support. The Saudis were trying to provoke a crisis in Lebanon by having Hariri resign. This might set off internal conflict in Lebanon, which the Saudis want, or it might have been to cause a crisis as an excuse to attack Lebanon. “Hariri Resigns, Calls Lebanon a Hezbollah Dictatorship” would be the headlines, and then the US, Israel or Arabia would use that as a go-ahead to be humanitarian bombers and attack Lebanon “to restore democracy.”

Make no mistake about it, the Saudis want Hezbollah gone. They also want Iran dead and gone. Neither is going anywhere soon.

Iran, Hezbollah (Lebanon), and Syria form the Axis of Resistance. These are the only three official state enemies that Israel has left. They’ve taken out Libya and Iraq. If the Houthis win in Yemen, they might join the Axis of Resistance also. The Gulf states are not friendly to Israel, but Israel does not regard them as enemy states. They even have a long term alliance with the Saudis. Israel has a peace treaty with Jordan and Egypt. However, popular opinion in both countries is dead set against Israel, but both are dictatorships that do not represent popular will.

The Israel-hostile Muslim Brotherhood was replaced by a secular dictator supported by the US, Israel, and the Saudis. The Saudis hate the Muslim Brotherhood because they see them as rivals who want to rule Saudi Arabia. Doctrinally, there is not much difference between the two. I believe Qatar dislikes the MB also for the same reason. The MB is huge in Jordan and occupies many seats in  Parliament. Hamas is the MB of  Palestine, but they never talk about that because Palestine is quite secular, and the MB is not popular there for that reason. The MB is big among Sunnis in Northern Lebanon. Of course they have always been huge in Egypt – their birthplace. Hassan al-Banna created the MB in Egypt in 1928.

Lebanon as a state absolutely hates Israel. They have no relations with them, and the two are officially still at war, as Israel never signed an armistice with Lebanon in 1949. Libya has been neutralized as a state and is no threat to Israel. The new government of Tunisia is saying that they want diplomatic relations with Israel, and this is setting off huge demonstrations in Tunisia. Algeria is not friendly with Israel, but they are no threat either. The same is true in Morocco.

Turkey is also unfriendly, but they are no threat either, and they have been working closely with the Israelis in Syria. Israeli and Turkish intelligence were embedded in Al Qaeda in Syria, along with US, Saudi, and UAE intelligence. If you recall back when Aleppo was finally being liberated, there were intense negotiations going on at the end because there were some allied intelligence officers who had taken refuge in the last holdouts of the city. This included 10-12 US intelligence agents who were embedded in Syrian Al Qaeda.

A lot of people in the region are playing a very dirty game these days!

This previously published article (December 2017) on Global Research reveals the well-calculated plan of the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia on inciting a “civil war” in Lebanon to defeat Hezbollah. 

Israel – seemingly leading the squad with the green signal from Washington – has just fabricated yet another grounds for war. 


Washington’s plan to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has ultimately failed. Now Lebanon seems to be in the cross-hairs with tensions between Israel and Hezbollah on the same level that led to the 2006 Lebanon war. There is also the possibility that a new offensive against Syria that might take place as Washington maintains its troop levels in the devastated country caused by ISIS and other terrorists groups they supported. Various reports suggests that the Pentagon may reveal that there are close to 2,000 U.S. troops stationed in Syria even though ISIS has been defeated. So why is Washington staying in Syria? Will there be another attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the near future? Most likely, yes. Adding the Trump administration’s continued hostilities towards Iran, the drumbeats of a new war in the Middle East is loud and clear.

Israel, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have one main objective at the moment and that is to destabilize Lebanon and attempt to defeat Hezbollah before they prepare for another offensive in Syria to remove Assad from power. Before they declare an all-out war on Iran, they must neutralize their allies, Hezbollah and Syria, which is by far an extremely difficult task to accomplish.

The Israeli government knows that it cannot defeat Hezbollah without sacrificing both its military and civilian populations. Israel needs the U.S. military for added support if their objective is to somewhat succeed. Israel and the U.S. can continue its support of ISIS and other terrorist groups to create a new civil war in Lebanon through false-flag terror operations which in a strategic sense, can lead to an internal civil war.

Can Hezbollah and the Lebanese military prevent terrorist groups from entering its territory? So far they have been successful in defeating ISIS on the Lebanon-Syria border and will most likely be successful in preventing a new U.S.-supported terrorist haven in Lebanon. Lebanon’s Prime Minister Saad Hariri who originally resigned from his post while visiting the Saudi Kingdom and then suspended his resignation is a sign that a political crisis has been set in motion. So what happens next?

The Curse: Lebanon’s Natural Resources and the Greater Israel Project

In the case of a devastating war on Lebanon, with a civil war intact, Israel would surely attempt to take control over Lebanon’s natural resources. Since Trump got in the White House, Israel has expanded its Jewish settlements through land seizures throughout Palestine at unprecedented levels and with the occupation of the Golan Heights (a Syrian territory), they already control a portion of oil, gas, and vital water supplies. Lebanon would be a huge bonus.

In 2013, Lebanese Energy Minister Gebran Bassil estimated that Lebanon has around 96 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves and 865 million barrels of oil offshore. With Lebanon’s political chaos and Israel preparing for a long-term war with Hezbollah, all of this leads to Israel Shahak’s The Zionist Plan for the Middle East which states the intended goal for the fragmentation of Lebanon and other adversaries in the Middle East:

3) This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme. This theme has been documented on a very modest scale in the AAUG publication Israel’s Sacred Terrorism (1980), by Livia Rokach. Based on the memoirs of Moshe Sharett, former Prime Minister of Israel, Rokach’s study documents, in convincing detail, the Zionist plan as it applies to Lebanon and as it was prepared in the mid-fifties.

4) The first massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978 bore this plan out to the minutest detail. The second and more barbaric and encompassing Israeli invasion of Lebanon on June 6, 1982, aims to effect certain parts of this plan which hopes to see not only Lebanon but Syria and Jordan as well in fragments. 

This ought to make mockery of Israeli public claims regarding their desire for a strong and independent Lebanese central government. More accurately, they want a Lebanese central government that sanctions their regional imperialist designs by signing a peace treaty with them. They also seek acquiescence in their designs by the Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian, and other Arab governments as well as by the Palestinian people. What they want and what they are planning for is not an Arab world, but a world of Arab fragments that is ready to succumb to Israeli hegemony. Hence, Oded Yinon in his essay, “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980’s,” talks about “far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967” that are created by the “very stormy situation [that] surrounds Israel. 

Israel is gearing up for a long and devastating war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-ally which is based in Lebanon’s southern region to deter Israel’s expansionist ideas. As Saudi Arabia (Israel’s closest ally in the region) continues its immoral and devastating war on Yemen, it is raising tensions with Iran. According to Thomas L. Friedman’s article Saudi Arabia’s Arab Spring, At Last praising who he calls “M.B.S.” or Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, for his reformist policies. According to Friedman: 

“Iran’s “supreme leader is the new Hitler of the Middle East,” said M.B.S. “But we learned from Europe that appeasement doesn’t work. We don’t want the new Hitler in Iran to repeat what happened in Europe in the Middle East.”

The Trump administration’s continued support of the Saudi Monarchy which negotiated an arms deal worth billions has only emboldened the Saudi government to take an aggressive stand towards its adversaries in the Middle East namely, Iran.

Lebanon Prepares for Another War

On November 21st, Reuters published an article titled Lebanon army chief warns of Israel threat amid political crisis based on Lebanon’s Army Chief warning his troops to be on high alert concerning Israel’s aggressive behavior along the southern border. It was reported: 

“Lebanon’s army chief told his soldiers on Tuesday to be extra vigilant to prevent unrest during political turmoil after the prime minister quit, and accused Israel of “aggressive” intentions across the southern frontier” despite Lebanon’s Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s return to Lebanon and decision to put his resignation on hold.

The army’s Twitter account quoted the Lebanese Army’s Commander General Joseph Aoun who said:

“Troops should be ready to “thwart any attempt to exploit the current circumstances for stirring strife” and that “the exceptional political situation that Lebanon is going through requires you to exercise the highest levels of awareness.”

Israel understands that a defeat against Hezbollah and the Lebanese military will be absolutely difficult to accomplish, therefore preparations to engage Hezbollah this time will be an effort to create as much damage as possible and reduce their military capabilities, maybe in time for U.S. troops to enter the war through Syria and coordinate targets with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). As I mentioned earlier, and may I add with an interesting choice of words, a report published by Reuters on November 24th suggests that the Pentagon might announce how many troops they have in Syria:

Two U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the Pentagon could as early as Monday publicly announce that there are slightly more than 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria. They said there was always a possibility that last minute changes in schedules could delay an announcement. That is not an increase in troop numbers, just a more accurate count, as the numbers often fluctuate.

A War That No One Will Win 

The Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), an establishment think-tank based in New York City published an article on July 30th of this year by neocon warmonger Eliot Abrams who was a deputy assistant and deputy national security adviser for President George W. Bush titled The Next Israel-Hezbollah Conflict admits that “the next war is a war that will not be “won” by Israel or Hezbollah.”

Abrams said that “Israel’s realistic war aims will not match the damage it will suffer—and the damage it will necessarily inflict” in reference to a strategic assessment by a report by Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies titled Political and Military Contours of the Next Conflict with Hezbollah by Gideon Sa’ar, an Israeli politician and a former Likud member of the Knesset, and Ron Tira, a strategist, Israeli Air Force officer and pilot, highlights what Israel’s realistic goals should be:

Israel’s objectives in a future conflict will be derived first and foremost from what it wants to achieve in the distinct context (such as, for example, preventing Hezbollah’s buildup of certain qualitative edge capabilities or preventing deployment of high quality Iranian weapon systems in Syria).

But a review of the fundamental data reveals a few “generic” objectives that could be applicable in many contexts: postponing the following conflict, shaping the rules for the routine times that will follow the conflict, increasing deterrence with respect to Hezbollah and third parties, undermining the attractiveness of Hezbollah’s war paradigm (use of rockets and missiles hidden among the civilian population), preserving Israel’s relations with its allies, and creating the conditions to reduce Iranian involvement in the post-war reconstruction of Lebanon, as well as imposing new and enforceable restrictions on the freedom of access of the Iran-Alawite-Hezbollah axis.

The strategic assessment mentioned what realistic goals Israel can achieve when the conflict takes place according to the assessment:

There is only a limited range of “positive” and achievable objectives that Israel can hope to attain from Hezbollah and from Lebanon. While the purpose of an armed conflict is always political, in many contexts it is hard to find a political objective that is both meaningful and achievable at a reasonable cost, and that is the reason for the basic lack of value that can be found in an Israel- Hezbollah military conflict. 

The reason that an Israeli defeat over Hezbollah is impossible according to Mr. Abrams’s conclusion is because of Russia’s presence in the region:

That’s because Russia cannot be expelled, Lebanon will remain roughly half-Shia, and Hezbollah will survive—as will its relationship with Iran. After the war, the best assumption would be that Hezbollah will rebuild as it did after 2006. But Hezbollah would achieve nothing positive in such a conflict, suffering immense damage and bringing immense destruction upon Lebanon. Its only possible “gain” is the damage it would inflict on Israel. In a way this is the only “good news.”

Israel’s Economy During Wartime

David Rosenberg’s opinion piece Israel’s Next War: We Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet on the 2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict in the Israel-based news source Haaretz explains the consequences of war and how it effects Israel’s economy. Rosenberg said that:

 In 2014, the missile war wasn’t a threat so much as a spectacle, as Israelis watched Iron Dome missiles bring down Qassam rockets, to applause. Score one for the home team.

However, Rosenberg claims that the next war with Hezbollah will be different, in fact it will effect Israel’s economy in several ways:

The next war isn’t going to look like that. The round figure everyone uses for Hezbollah’s missile arsenal is 100,000. That is a suspiciously round figure and is probably wrong, but no one disputes that the Shiite militia is well-armed, and more importantly, many of its missiles carry much more powerful warheads and are much more accurate than they were in 2006. Hezbollah’s arsenal includes attack drones and coast-to-sea missiles, too. For its part, Israel is also better prepared. Iron Dome, which is designed to bring down short-range rockets, has been complemented by the introduction of the David’s Sling and Arrow systems, designed to intercept long-range rockets and ballistic missiles, respectively. 

But against an onslaught of thousands of missiles, no Domes, Slings or Arrows will be able to provide the kind of defense Israelis have grown used to. Israel’s infrastructure and economic activity are vulnerable to even a limited missile attack from Hezbollah. Geographically, Israel is a small country with no hinterland, which means facilities for electric power and water are concentrated in small areas. More than a quarter of electric power is generated at just two sites. Natural gas is produced at a single offshore field and delivered via a single pipeline. A large portion of our exports derive from a single industrial plant. A prolonged missile war will almost certainly bring business to a halt.

Israel’s economy will shrink within a short-time period, according to Rosenberg:

In the worst-case scenario, a post-war Israel would no longer be seen by global investors and businesses as a safe place to put their money and do deals. Imagine Startup Nation without the constant flow of cross-border capital and mergers and acquisitions. The fantasy land of the last 11 years would disappear in a matter of days or weeks.

Rosenberg is correct. For example, during the 2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict, Israel was faced with economic uncertainties. The Times of Israel published an article during the conflict with an appropriate title War depresses people, economy; strong shekel harmful clarified what experts said on how the economy would be effected during a “drawn-out” conflict:

Experts temper the pessimism by noting that in the past, the Israeli economy has been resilient. If the current conflict is resolved quickly, there may be little cause for concern. On the other hand, a drawn out conflict in Gaza may cause investors to worry about the country’s stability and could cause long term damage to Israel’s reputation and position as a key player in the global economy. 

“Our key concerns are the openness of the Israeli economy and our ability to be a key player in the global markets,” Zvi Eckstein, former deputy governor of the Bank of Israel and dean of the School of Economics at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC). Herzliya noted in an interview with The Times of Israel. “It’s really still a key uncertainty how the conflict will end up,” said Eckstein. “Most people predict we will get back to the same relatively stable geopolitical situation as we were in early July, and if so, I would say the economy would rebound back later next year. But if not, the threat to Israel’s economy would be quite devastating.”

That conflict was against a weaker adversary, Hamas. For starters, a war with Hezbollah, Lebanon, and Syria however would have a negative impact on Israel’s tourism industry where it receives more than 3 million tourists (mainly from the U.S. and Europe) per year. Israel’s level of production will also take a hit. The Street published an interesting article How Is Israel’s Economy Affected by the Current War? explaining what happened to Israel’s economy during the 2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict:

The Israeli economy suffers directly from reductions in productivity every time missile alert sirens send the country’s residents into bomb shelters. The economic costs of the war are estimated upwards of $2.9 billion, and already the war has soaked up 1.2% of the GDP. In the event that quiet prevails after a ceasefire is reached, the Israeli economy is resilient enough to withstand the costs of this operation.

History reflects that the Israeli economy surged at a rate of 6% prior to the 2006 Lebanon war and then slowed down to 2.9% prior to this current conflict. The tourism sector is going to be particularly hard hit, and if a third Intifada ensues, the economic costs for Israel could be crippling. Since a big chunk of Israel’s workforce is enlisted in the IDF, productivity declines are widespread and costs are mounting. The IMA (Israel Manufacturers Association) has already listed a figure of $240 million in losses as a result of the war effort.

Another War, Another Tragedy

Related image

Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. want to permanently eliminate the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance, and to achieve that goal, Lebanon will have to become another Libya, causing more chaos in an already volatile situation. The only beneficiaries in this coming war are Israel and the U.S., if of course, they are victorious. The U.S. and their allies would re-establish themselves as the hegemonic power in the Middle East with absolute control over the natural resources including oil, gas, and water. Israel would also expand and conquer more territory for Greater Israel. Saudi Arabia would remain a vassal state with more political leverage over its neighbors.

And if Saudi Arabia foolishly decided to go to war with Iran, the House of Saud will inevitably collapse, since Iran is much more stronger, militarily speaking. Washington plans to keep its military presence in Syria are a signal that removing Assad from power is still on the agenda. Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the Trump administration (decertifying the Iran Nuclear Deal with the intention to eventually kill the deal) is a recipe for a planned long-term conflict. Israel’s economy would suffer a major setback if they were to launch an attack against Hezbollah.

Besides, the fact that a war against Hezbollah would mean that missiles would constantly strike within Israel creating a massive amount of stress on Israeli citizens and a downturn of the economy would only add another dimension to the wide-reaching full-scale war. Israel hopes that Hezbollah will be temporally neutralized until the U.S. Congress and the Trump Administration jointly approve another military and economic aid package worth billions in time to continue its wars. Then there is the possibility of a joint U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Israeli orchestrated attack on Syria to remove Assad from power to ultimately isolate Iran, but with Russia and China backing Iran, it would be a no-win situation.  The biggest loser in all of its foreign policy blunders is the U.S., Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

Israel’s plan to launch more aggressive wars against its neighbors to further an expansionist objective would come at a great cost to Israeli citizens, as their economy sinks into the rabbit hole, and the threat of incoming missiles from southern Lebanon makes it that much more worst. Lebanon and to an extent Israel will be once again devastated by a new war. For both sides of the border, it is a formula for disastrous consequences.

This article was originally published by Silent Crow News.

Featured image is from the author.


Filed under Africa, Algeria, Asia, Christianity, Economics, Egypt, Europe, Geopolitics, Government, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, Military Doctrine, North Africa, Nuclear Weapons, Palestine, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Republicans, Saudi Arabia, Shiism, Sunnism, Syria, Terrorism, Tunisia, Turkey, US Politics, USA, War, Zionism

Sunnis As Protestants, Shia As Catholics

Despite being banned by Islam, many local forms of Islam developed that were outside of the original laws laid down by Mohammad. For instance, it was very common to have graveyards with gravestones in the Muslim World, especially in Central Asia. Worship of God via intercessionary saints and their temples was also quite common, especially in Northern Mesopotamia and over into Central Asia.

Both of these were associated with Sufism, the innovated Islamic form which has frankly always been the official Islam of the Sunnis of Iraq, including Saddam’s regime. Some of the later rebel groups in the Iraqi resistance were Sufis, even though Sufism is fairly quietist as far as Islam goes. Sufism is also very big in the Kurdish area, in Iran among the Shia as a Shia Sufism sanctioned all the way up to the mullah level, and of course into Afghanistan, which is really Ground Zero for this sort of shirk, innovation, etc. That some of the most fundamentalist Islam of all came out of such a central area of Islamic deviation is odd, or perhaps the fundamentalists were rebelling against all of the shirk and innovation.

It is well known outrage against all sorts of forms of shirk and heretical innovation in the Arab World that has led to the development of political Islam, the Salafists and onto Al Qaeda and ISIS. Make no mistake, the Salafists, Sunni fundamentalists, Salafists, Al Qaeda and ISIS are all products of the Arab World originally. Al Qaeda itself came out of Saudi Arabia and Egypt and then on to Sudan. The spread to Central Asia, where Al Qaeda relocated to Afghanistan, was a later development in context with the Islamic revolt against the Marxist regime there beginning in 1978-79.

These Salafists are back to basics purists similar to what a lot of fundamentalist Protestants nowadays claim to be. It was also similar to the Protestant Revolt, which was actually a back to basics revolt against the Catholic Church, mostly due to corruption due to selling of indulgences, writing the books in Latin, and the Church’s great wealth. Corrupt priests are hardly Christians at all. Writing the books in Latin a language few could read led to the religion being distorted into whatever the priests wanted it to be instead of the Word itself.

Jesus’ message was go forth and bring the good news to the common man, hence the missions of the Mormons and other missionaries, the Bible translation of SIL, etc. A real Christianity would write the books in whatever language the people could read. Writing in a language that the layfolk can’t even read is anti-Christian. And indeed, the most back to basic folks in Christianity nowadays are still the Protestants, analogous to Sunnis who believe that the Koran was divine word and must not be deviated from.

In contrast, the Shia are like the Catholics. The Catholics actually believe that the Christianity must constantly be reinterpreted to go along with the times, sort of like liberal living Constitution types in Constitutional law. This itself is actually quite progressive and it is the lack of a central authority banning back to basics and mandating living Christianity that leads to almost all true literary Biblicalist fundamentalists nowadays being Protestants.

The Vatican learned its lessons early on via Galileo in being anti-science. They have changed quite a bit. For God’s sake, the Vatican even has its own astronomer!

The resistance to the theory of evolution was mostly coming from the Protestants in the years after Darwin. The Catholic Church simply went agnostic on the subject, which I believe is still doctrinal to believers who can choose to believe or not even if the Church itself says that evolution is true.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

Leave a comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Asia, Catholicism, Christianity, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Kurdistan, Left, Marxism, Middle East, North Africa, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Saudi Arabia, Science, Shiism, South Asia, Sudan, Sufism, Sunnism

The King As God and Pie in the Sky When You Die

The Catholic churches sold pie in the sky to the working classes for centuries, urging them to accept their downtrodden role in life as religiously sanctified. Yes, this life is terrible, they said, but this is your lot in life, essentially ordained by God and religion (notice the connection with Hindu caste here) to live this life, there is glory, beauty and valor in suffering, after all suffering being at the heart of Christianity since He died on the cross.

Revolting now would be a sin, the Church preached. I am not sure how they conjured up how it was a sin, but perhaps given the connections between religion and  the state in those days the priests said that the monarchs  were ruling via God and hence rebellion would be rebellion against God and religion itself. How can you fight a war against God, Jesus and the Bible? Talk about a heresy! And in this way, the people were calmed.

The Nepalese Hindus were told the same thing and hence they were banned from rebelling against the state. If you prayed, lived a good life as sin-free as possible or at the  very least had your sins absolved regularly, you could accept your miserable lot in this earthly life on the grounds that if you lived religiously properly, you could have “pie in the sky when you die.”

In other words, keep your head down, don’t complain too much, don’t rebel, accept your lot in life and just try to be a good Christian you will rewarded with an eternity in Heavenly bliss when you die. You wonder why the early Marxists hated religion so much and called it the opium of the people. I believe it was mostly for this reason – religion sapping the normal revolutionary will of the people in service to a powerful elite who abused the common people.

As noted above, in Europe it was common for the monarchs to claim to be ruling in God’s place acting via intercession in place of God Himself and religion.

In this sense, the monarchs in Old Europe were God. There were the people and then God and religion. In between stood the priesthood and especially the monarchs. The latter in particular made great pains to show that they had been chosen directly by God to rule and that it was actually God and religion which was ruling the people via the monarch.

In ancient times, it was supposedly not uncommon for rulers to claim to be ruling in place of God or via God. In this sense, God and religion themselves were ruling the people and the monarch was simply a pawn, a tool of the Gods, forced to implement the will of God and religion and an intercessionary conduit. The ruler was barely even a human. He was in fact something of a Human Pipeline, transmitting the will of religion and God to the people via decrees and rules. If you are being ruled by God and religion themselves, how can one revolt.

The Hindu monarchy in Nepal does the exact same thing.

I am not sure the extent to which the Muslim rulers pulled this off as intercessionary prayer is supposedly banned in Islam as being one step from idolatry while also being a prohibited innovation. However, many of the sultans and imams who ruled the Arab World were in a sense religiously sanctified often by being the genetic line of Muhammad himself. If you are being ruled by Muhammad’s descendant via the laws that Muhammad laid down himself with the imam being in a sense intercessionary to Mohammad, God, and religion (though never stated explicitly as such).

So the same thing was going on in the Arab World except that noticing it and stating it out loud were virtual heresies akin to saying that the ruler himself was a heretic.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.


Leave a comment

Filed under Arabs, Asia, Catholicism, Christianity, Europe, Hinduism, Islam, Left, Marxism, Nepal, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia

Problems of the Arab Mind, with a Nod to Raphael Patai

Interesting comment on the site from this old post, which I really ought to run again. It sure would be nice to talk to this woman some more. I would like her to elaborate on her comments here. From the way she describes it, it is almost like Arab culture is an actual Culture of Narcissists, with most of the men being narcissistic mostly due to how they are raised. And yes the women are raised to feel inferior from the very start. This is the case in family life even from the early years. It is clear to the Arab girl growing up that the boys and men in the family are superior to the girls and women.

I totally agree with Robert. Being cunning while having no resources is natural to them. They also involuntary gaslight everyone around them 24/7, from business tactics to the closest people in their life (Yes, even family).

I am Latina and after being married to one and traveling to North Africa several times, I can assure you it takes their holidays of Ramadan to get them to actually help other people. They can walk right past a child dying of starvation and not offer and feel no remorse. They are unbelievably selfish to a point an American could never grasp. This is what allows them to get into relationships with other narcissistic Arabs. It’s sickening really because all women want is love, and a woman will never be happy married to an Arab for long.

They have an uncanny ability to manipulate and gaslight/brainwash people. It’s really fucking scary. All that charm with their good looks fucks your head up. They will break your spirit, disconnect your soul from your body, and hold it in a suspense state. I finally broke away after 13 years of loving and hoping he would change. I had to literally start recording our conversations because he would have me questioning my own sanity. When I was alone I would play those conversations back to myself because I honestly couldn’t remember at the time what was going on around me.

It’s all just so sad. I lost all those years living in CPTSD, and now I’m in total isolation. So what I’m saying is stay away from them as much as possible or you will be sucked in. Keep in mind I am a professional. I am a current member of SHRM and also a Human Resource Director.

The sad part is their women stand up for them because they were born and breed to be slaves via humiliation from the beginning. This is the way cults, the military, and other organizations manipulate their members to mind control them. These women don’t even know that they were born to gaslight themselves. Sad but true.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

1 Comment

Filed under Arabs, Culture, Islam, Narcissism, Personality, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Religion, Romantic Relationships, Women

The Reactionary Catholic Church Hierarchy and a Link to Secretive Syncretic Religions of the Middle East

The Catholic Church hierarchy nearly everywhere has been reactionary.  The Catholic Church had been in with the ruling classes in Europe forever. This was one of the main reasons why the Bible was never translated into the vernacular and why masses were always held in Latin. The people could neither read not speak Latin, hence there was a huge disconnect between the Church hierarchy and the people.

This is similar to many other religions, especially eclectic religions of the Middle East such as Yezidism, Alawism and Druze. In all of these religions, the secrets of the religion are usually held in secret by a priestly caste of mostly men, though the Druze actually have female priests. For a long time, the secret book of the Yezidis was thought  to not even exist except perhaps only in oral form – this is how secret it was. This ended when an actual copy fell into Western hands around 1900.

In all of these religions, the “real true” religion is in the hands of the priestly caste and they make sure not to tell any outsiders what the religion is about. Hence it has been very hard to get good data on any of these religions. The people are fed some watered down version of the religion that doesn’t mean much of anything and  if you ask the average Alwai, Druze or Yezidi what their religion is about, you will only get some diluted harmless synopsis acceptable for outside ears. Usually what the people say the religion believes and what it really believes are two different things altogether.

The Catholic Church was in with the rich and in Europe especially in the Middle Ages it was very wealthy. It was this extreme wealth that enabled the Church to build those huge architectural masterpieces we see in the form of Medieval churches across the north of Europe, especially in France and England. They sold the peasants pie in the sky when you die like religions always do. It was this anti-people, pro-rich philosophy that made Marx so hostile to religion. He was not so much against it because he was a materialist and he thought it was superstition; he was also against it because he thought it was reactionary.

The hierarchy of the Church remained reactionary all through the  20th Century. Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador and the four Catholic priests assassinated in 1989 at the start of the great guerrilla offensive (a crime that was plotted in the US ambassador’s office of the US Embassy two days before) were the exceptions to this rule. The Church hierarchy in Venezuela and Nicaragua remain rightwing and hostile to the Sandinistas and Chavistas to this very day. Same with the church hierarchy in Spain to the best of my knowledge.

1 Comment

Filed under Alawi, Catholicism, Central America, Christian, Christianity, Druze, El Salvador, Europe, History, Islam, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Marxism, Middle Ages, Nicaragua, Political Science, Regional, Religion, Shiism, South America, Spain, Venezuela, Yezidism

Alt Left: “Why I am Not an MRA”

I continue to say that Ryan England is one of our finest Alt Left thinkers. I say that in part because I agree with him so much. I would put him up there with Brandon Adamson, who I also agree with a lot. And both Brandon and Ryan are two of the finest writers, as in prose stylists, in our movement.

I have reputation for being so radical and nuts that I am almost persona non grata in this movement. I know that posts linking to me have been removed from the Alternative Left that Ryan started. Apparently I am “raciss” or something. It takes almost nothing to get called that anymore. Just be a bit honest, and you’re done. I also have a reputation, via Lord Keynes, for being an extremist on the Cultural Left.

It is said that I have some extreme positions on the SJW Left. He is also rather astonished at how socially conservative I am. But I am not a social conservative at all. My views are Democratic Party’s Official Platform 1995. That these views are now seen as just as socially conservative as Roy Moore is quite astonishing, but it shows just how fast the runaway clown car train called the Cultural Left Freakshow has gone in just ~20 years. And indeed I am not just a conservative. I am also a reactionary. I want to roll back the clock – to Democratic Party 1995. That this is considered Troglodytism is one again a symptom of the disease.

Part of the controversy was that I supported Antifa. That makes you almost persona non grata on the Alt Left. It was said that I had moved to the extreme Left. That’s hardly possible as I have always been there. I was on the mailing list for the Weathermen for Chrissakes. After that, I was buying guns for the Marxist rebels in El Salvador. And I haven’t budged since.

The funny thing is that despite my supposed extremism, I find myself agreeing with Ryan England (who is actually himself quite a radical Left type on the Alt Left) a very good part of the time. This post could have been written by me, but I am not eloquent or disciplined enough to have done so, so Ryan had to do it. If you want to know where I stand on the issue of feminism, etc. (I am supposedly an MRA radical) just read this post. I am as MRA as Ryan is. That our mild views are now MRA shows just again just how insane the “normal” has gotten now. Yep, you read that right. Crazy is the new normal. Sane is new bigotry and reaction.

Not going to say much more about this except that I hope it spurs some comments. Like Ryan, I am also a feminist. I came out of the feminist movement back when it meant something. Once again the crazy train left me stranded at the station holding flowers and jilted once again. I still support liberal feminism, sex positive feminism (though if Jezebel is the definition, I have my worries) and equity feminism. I think Ryan might want to identify as a masculinist or Men’s Liberationist. These are the left wings of the MRA movement to the extent that they exist at all. One can be both a masculinist and a feminist and the demands of basic equality nearly mandate it.

I have scarcely seen an article that lays out the poison of modern feminism so eloquently and accurately. Once again, his words are mine. My principal beef with feminism is outlined here by my alter ego, Ryan.

Read and enjoy.

Why I am not an MRA

By Ryan England

Feminism 101

Doesn’t it want to make you swoon?


I know I’m going to catch flak for this, but I don’t care much for the men’s rights movement. I do think they make good points – I’ve read Warren Farrell for example and found his work quite profound. In fact, it really takes a wrecking ball to this idea that men have conspired to make the world a wonderful place at the expense of women. You can’t reasonably believe that after reading Farrell’s works.

Why I don’t really relate to the MRM is rooted in my overarching distrust of identity politics. I do think that there’s all kinds of room to criticize the excesses of feminism, and some points made by the MRM are valuable in that regard.  Decades of ideological protectionism has produced a very real feminist echo chamber with next to no external checks on its claims.  The MRM can by helpful in remedying that.  The MRM also brings our attention to real issues that men are confronted with.  Glaring disadvantage (to varying degrees depending on jurisdiction) in divorce settlements and child custody arrangements being the most obvious example.

The feminist demonization of male heterosexuality; this presumption underlying much of feminist theory that male sexual attraction towards women is somehow demeaning and objectifying of women is something else that needs to be challenged and the present taboo against disagreeing with feminism desperately needs to be broken here.  The MRM can help in that regard.  The equation of compliments and polite civil greetings on part of men towards women with harassment, objectification or even oppression, commonly seen on social media, is a manifestation of this.  If taken at all seriously, especially in any kind of public policy context, this kind of thinking could effectively close the door on prospects for male-female encounters of all but the most institutional kind.

The ever expanding definition of rape, and the ever narrowing definitions of consent, and the increasingly onerous requirements for obtaining legal consent – an express verbal “yes” given for every touch, kiss or caress, and even that be nullified if there’s any alcohol or mental illness or any factor that could in the slightest call into question the strict legal capacity to give consent, constitute another manifestation of this.  The end game here, I suspect, is to make legal intercourse, for all intents and purposes, impossible for men.

Although most feminists profess to disagree in principle with the notion that all things “boy meets girl” are inherently sexist or oppressive – and may even trot out their own relationship as proof of this, the restrictions imposed on gender dynamics by these kinds of very popular demands made by very widely circulated and credible media outlets that represent the mainstream of liberal opinion on gender issues, would make establishing even platonic, let along erotic relationships extremely difficult.

That many feminists choose to make exceptions to their own rules for themselves and the men they get the D from should not be taken as proof of feminism’s flexibility and open mindedness.  It should be taken as proof of moral hypocrisy on part of the feminists so doing, and a tacit admission on their part that their system of sexual morality and conduct is no more reasonable and in alignment with human nature than that of the religious conservatives they so smugly see themselves as superior to.

Compound that with inundation of  feminist perspectives casting heterosexual relationships in so consistently negative a light; as being about nothing other than unequal distribution of domestic labor, unequal pay, riven with male insecurity and unreasonable male behaviors contrasted to the relief women are expected to seek and experience in all-female spaces, as characterized by universally poor male sexual performance and an expectation of female preference for marital celibacy, dildos, lesbianism, asexuality, promiscuity, anything other than relational intimacy – all hermetically sealed by a propensity to yell “fragile male ego” at any dissention from any of the above on part of men – as if this kind of petty weaponized rejection is something we should just sit back and relish, and feminist gender dynamics become a mortal threat to healthy heterosexual relationships, even if it turns out to be death by a thousand cuts rather than a swift beheading.

A strong MRM could be a countervailing force for reason and love in gender relations.  On the other hand, groups like MGTOW could just up the ante and make things worse rather than better.  Don’t get me wrong: you, dear reader, be you male or female, have every right as far as I’m concerned to live your life as you see fit, and if that involves not having a significant other of the opposite sex, good luck to you.  I once wanted an unattached life myself.  May you succeed where I failed.

But to advocate widespread rejection of the opposite sex, as feminism often implicitly and, in the case of separatist feminism, explicitly does, and MGTOW likewise does, is to advocate for the infliction of protracted neurosis and frustration culminating in a demographic holocaust upon whichever population is to embrace this as a form of gender based political activism.  It would inflict incalculable and irreparable damage on the psychological fabric of such a society.

But even a less strident form of male activism than MGTOW could end up becoming a gender flipped version of the worst aspects of feminism.  I’ve noticed that in every debate I’ve ever read between feminists and MRAs – though flame war is a better description in just about ever case, since debate implies a reasoned exchange of views and that’s most definitely not what happens – the exchange always boils down to each side saying to the other, “you’re just ugly and can’t get laid” – with cats and mother’s basements figuring in there somehow. Inevitably, one side resigns in frustration over the strident unreasonableness of the other, and both remain more convinced than ever that the opposite sex is hopelessly screwed up.  There’s not much of a future in this.

Taken to their logical conclusions, demands upon heterosexual relationships would end up more closely resembling shari’a law than they would anything previous generations of liberal feminists struggled and fought for.

Wait a minute …

Of course,  feminism – in its more reasonable forms, is still needed to protect and safeguard the rights of women. Life is certainly not all wine and roses for all women at all times, and men are not blameless. This is especially true in communities where, for religious reasons, women still very much are second class citizens.

This is what I find both astounding and disturbing about What looks like an alliance of feminists and Islamists, particularly in opposition to the Trump presidency.  While I don’t condone the more boorish things Trump has said about women, you can’t compare the danger posed to women by macho locker room bluster with the danger posed to women by shari’a law.  Given the dour attitudes that both feminists and Islamists appear to have towards free and fun expression of happiness and attraction between the sexes, however, I can see the kinship the two might have with one another, though from where I sit, it promises to be a stormy relationship.

What I worry about regarding the MRM, though, is its own potential to become a kind of rank gender partisanship. That “Male good female bad” thinking could, and does, easily arise from it.

Because that, in its own way, is exactly what happened to feminism. What began as being “just about equality” or just about “the same treatment of women as for men” has become a blinding and fanatical form of gender partisanship. Motivated by dogmatic adherence to feminism, whole cohorts of young women (and their male sympathizers) have circled the wagons and harnessed collective groupthink to hermetically seal themselves away from any kind of criticism or dissent.

Driven by a sense of universal and historical mission, these women regard themselves as quite entitled to ceaselessly make unilateral demands of men with no countervailing concessions, tar all men with collective responsibility and guilt by association for the very real crimes and misdeeds of some men, and to effectively kill any prospect for intimacy and trust between the sexes by making militant confrontation the permanent and universal norm for gender relations. Backed by unilateral academic and media support and an arsenal of canned responses and copy pasta with which to respond to naysayers, the impact that this has had on gender dynamics is nothing short of devastating.

As an antidote to this, we need to step back from identity politics. We don’t need a male version of the same thing. Given what we should now know about ideological and identitarian polarization, feminism and the MRM will most likely feed off one another and each further radicalize in response to the other. This is certainly what I’ve seen in every single exchange between MRMs and feminists that I’ve ever seen. If that process becomes normalized, it could well mean the death of heterosexual love in its entirety. The prospect of this worries me greatly. I really hope people of both (yes, both) genders can learn to take a step back from their attachments to gender ideology and start reasoning honestly about these kinds of issues.


Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Islam, Law, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Masculinism, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Radical Islam, Religion, Republicans, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics

The Sick Man of Europe Remains in Serious Condition

This whole idea that Turkey is ready for the EU is insane. There’s Europe, and then there’s Turkey. Turkey is a part of Europe geographically (sort of – more precisely part of Eurasia – where Europe and Asia meet), but it’s been the Sick Man of the continent so long it’s on its deathbed, soon to be flatlining. Absent an entire Cultural Revolution, Turkey will never be ready for the EU, and even if that unlikely event takes place, there’s those tens of thousands of Muslims who are now citizens of the EU. Just what Europe needs – more Muslims.

Turkey joining the EU = not happening!


Filed under Europe, Islam, Regional, Religion, Turkey

Just Got a Lifetime Ban from Daily Kos

Daily Kos is Ground Zero for the Base of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party’s Base is more leftwing than the party itself in the same way that the Republican Base is more rightwing than the party itself. Party Bases tend to be like that. The Base of the Democratic Party would best be called the Left Wing of the Democratic Party. Now granted, there are some decent people on there. There are actually a fair number of Marxists and socialists hanging out in the Democratic Party Base.  After all, they have nowhere else to go. But this is a quite small percentage of the Base.

I have been banned for life from Daily Kos, and honestly it is a blessing because I absolutely despise most Democratic Party liberal types. The problem with them is that there’s nothing liberal about them. In any sane system, they would be something like what used to be called a Liberal Republican. They just flat out suck!

Their foreign policy is horrific. Almost all liberal Democrats are ((neocon)) fanatics. The whole left wing of the Democratic Party is completely overrun with a ((certain type of people)). As usual, they destroy that wing of the party as a result. They love Israel! The Democratic Party can’t get enough of wonderful Israel. Wonderful Israel is the greatest country on Earth.

Almost 100% of them support the war against the Syrian people we are waging with our Al Qaeda and ISIS allies. They hate Russia! They love the Ukrainian Nazis! Yeah, I know, makes no sense. They love Israel and they also love Al Qaeda, ISIS and real actual Nazis in the Ukraine. But that’s the exact geopolitics of (((certain people))) in the US, and as (((these people))) control this wing of the party, (((their))) values become everyone’s values. The love NATO! They hate North Korea, and some of them want to attack North Korea! They love US imperialism! They love the Pentagon! They love the CIA! They love the FBI!

Everyone on Kos loved this maniac named “Mad Dog” Maddis, the new general heading  up the Pentagon under Trump. Personally, I think he’s psycho, and he’s just another War Pig. Actually he’s worse than your ordinary War Pig. He’s a particularly belligerent type of militarist War Pig. A very frightening man.

And of course that whole wing of the party has been taken over by some time now by the most insane of the SJW’s.

They love free trade agreements! I would say 85% of Kossacks love the TPP, all because their hero Hitlery was pushing it. Kossacks suck! They love globalization!

They are all for Open Borders and Amnesty! As a matter of fact, I believe it has been a bannable offense on there for some time now to oppose illegal immigration.

I will say though that there are now some anti-Israel and anti-Zionist types on there. There are a few who support Syria and even some who support Russia. These might be 20% of Kossacks. However, Israel has become such a divisive hot button issue that I believe all discussion of the Israel-Palestinian Question has been banned. It’s nice to see that the Israel-Palestine Question has become incendiary at all in the Democratic Base though. Things are slowly changing.

There was actually a huge Bernie Sanders movement on Daily Kos, and there was a near civil war between Killary and Sanders supporters on there. Mods were continually having to wade in and sort out wild shouting matches and near virtual fistfights on the site. I did enjoy seeing the emergence of a Bernie wing. The one redeeming feature of the Base right now is this Bernie wing. Hope springs eternal!

On most economic type issues, Kossacks are generally very good. Of course they’re correct that this current crop of Republicans is worse than cancer. I agree. In fact, these Kossacks are the closest thing to “my people” anywhere on the Web. Which is partly why the ban was so painful.

OK, now for the ban story.

A Kossack wrote a typical article on there about one of the many false flags the (((US))) and Al Qaeda have been staging in Syria. This one was one of the many fake chemical weapons false flags. Unbelievably, there have been ~40-50 chemical weapons false flag attacks in Syria so far. The (((US government))) helped to propagandize every single one of them, and we were apparently directly involved in others.

I know that the DIA was directly involved in the famous Fake Sarin Gas Attack in Ghouta in the Damascus suburbs a few years ago. As has been the case in a number of these attacks, not only did Assad not shoot any Sarin or any other chemical weapons that day, even more bizarrely than that is the fact there was no Sarin of chemical weapons attack by anyone, Syria or the rebels, in Ghouta that day. The Fake Sarin Attack was like the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and all sorts of staged false flag bullshit the US engages in.

This was an attack that, incredibly, never even happened! We are talking about an event that never even occurred! Isn’t that incredible? The recent “Sarin” attack in Khan Sheikoun was similar. Once again, not only did Assad not shoot Sarin or any other chemical weapons (he has none to shoot), but the rebels didn’t either. Once again we are talking about an attack that never even happened. What happened instead, as in Ghouta, was a fake staged phony attack which was meant to portray the real one.

Anyway, this (((good goy))) on ((Kos)) was going on about the evil Assad, how he launches chemical weapons on his people and how we need to send our close allies ISIS and Al Qaeda in to finish him off. The usual Zionist jerkoff on (((Kos))). The place is swarming with Zionists. They are practically crawling all of the walls and even up on the ceiling of the place.

So I posted a comment where I said something like:

“What’s the name of your hometown? Tel Aviv?”

Basically questioning his loyalty to America and suggesting that he was guilty of dual loyalty.

Well, the other (((Kossacks))) absolutely flipped out and called in some (((moderators))). I was immediately labeled a Republican Trump-supporting troll. The (((commenters))) were beside themselves about my “outrageous, bizarre and appallingly anti-Semitic remark.” On the contrary, I was quite proud of that remark. Hey, if you are running interference for Israel, we have a right to check you out to make sure you do not have dual loyalty as so many of those types do.

So now I have a lifetime ban at ((Daily Kos)) for “anti-Semitism.”

Fuck ((Daily Kos)). Fuck the ((Democratic Party)). Fuck ((liberal Democrats)).


Filed under Anti-Zionism, Asia, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Europe, Geopolitics, Government, Illegal, Immigration, Imperialism, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Middle East, NE Asia, Neoconservatism, North Korea, Open Borders, Political Science, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Republicans, Scum, Socialism, Syria, Traitors, Ukraine, US Politics, War, Zionism

PUA/Game: The Basic Rules of the Boy’s Club for Men

Fraser Crest: Wow, that was homophobic and bigoted. Anytime we make sweeping generalizations about any group of people, especially a minority group that has been oppressed and persecuted by a majority, you run the risk of being “phobic”. It’s stereotyping, it isn’t just, and it isn’t the truth.

So, if that person was in Hollywood and therefore knows ALL about gay people; then, I must be an expert on Orthodox Jews, Russian Jews, Rock-n-Rollers, actors and actresses, singers and musicians, bla, bla, bla, because I lived in and around Hollywood for nearly 30 years.

I had very masculine friends, muscular, confident, and genuinely good people; one friend who liked to do drag once in a while (he couldn’t wear anything too tight because he wouldn’t be able to conceal that huge bulge he had), and another friend who performed in a drag acting troupe that did performances on the weekends in Silverlake with hilarious characters, musical numbers, and a storyline that progressed each week. He was talented and funny, and I enjoyed going to see the shows and usually sat with his partner (a very butch, Latin former gang member who had been married three times and had three grandchildren).

My best friend was from Brazil and working on his PhD at USC (he now teaches back home in Brazil at Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil, and his mother is a well-known gay rights activist), and he didn’t fit into a gay stereotype.

As for myself, I lived near the Guitar Center and a theater bookstore – for many years I had long hair, and people asked what band I was in, and one time I was offered a spot in a band (because they liked my look) if I could play bass guitar – I can’t.

When I cut all my hair off, went really short and worked out at the gym – a girl who worked there told me her husband (a comedian) had written a 3-minute performance piece about ME. It was called “The Refreshingly Gay Man” – because I was neither feminine nor hyper-masculine as if trying to conceal something. I was just me. Her husband told me that when you wake up in the morning and open a window and take in a deep breath and stretch — he said that’s what I am – refreshingly gay.

After 9-11 I realized I didn’t know very much about Muslims at all, and I started to read…I hated what I was reading. So, I got a book that’s published by Muslims about their religion…I hated that too. So, I got a book by a lesbian who was raised Muslim and her search to find resolution and peace…didn’t help.

I so desperately did not want to be a bigot, and have bad feelings about a billion + people, but I was discouraged…until one day I discovered an incredibly beautiful singer who sings in Arabic. I have listened to her music for many years now, and I can sing along with quite a few songs. Music is a powerful healer. But she just helped me realize what I already knew — that there are good and bad people in every group…and truthfully, there was a big, abusive religion that forced conversions, tortured, murdered, or enslaved some who wouldn’t convert; and persecuted Jews, calling them “Christ killers”.

That little old religion is still based in Rome. Plus, there is a lot of violence and gross stuff in the Bible so stop pointing out crap from the Quran and think you just exposed all of those Muslims… because there are really decent, caring, loving, peaceful people who happen to follow their religion as they understand it to be or should be.

I also have a friend whose mother turned him into the authorities for being gay – he was only 23 or 24 — he had to appear before Islamic Court (three times) in Tehran. They took everything from him (job, bank account, car, furnishings), issued an order for execution and banned him from travel. Two friends got him out of Iran, risking prison if caught. He was exiled in Turkey for approximately 2 years before being accepted as a refugee to the U.S.

When I heard his story, I heard the words very clearly in my heart say, “I have to do everything I can to help him”. He calls me “dad” or “papa” now, I love that kid, and I’m so proud of him. I am still shaken by what he went through, but I am humbled that he is my “adopted son”.

No, all gay people are not the same.

Although I did joke in the 80’s that some gay men, when they get drunk, turn into black women. But I’m gay. I’m allowed a joke with my friends.

What you are reading up there is the way most straight men really, really feel about gay men. I am straight, and I have been around straight men my whole life. I know what my people are like. I think most straight men are homophobic on some level.

The Rules of the Boys’ Club

These are the rules for masculine straight society or for the Boy’s Club for Men that most such men are members of. Being a Club member means you are one of the boys or one of the guys.

1. NO GAY SHIT. ALSO NO FAGS (SORRY FOR THE LANGUAGE). Not even .00001% gay shit allowed, and no, none of them, no fags, don’t even come around, they’re not members, and they need to somewhere else with their own kind or their straight women friends. No hard feelings, but they are not wanted here. It’s a private club after all.

Gay shit? No, no, no, no, no, no, no.  Don’t even think about it! Do it, and you’re gone. Just like that. You are banished. You can’t even talk about it. If you do, you are suspected of being gay right there. It’s considered such an abomination that you never even bring it up. If you have some feelings like that, we get it, a lot of straight men do. But you really need to STFU about it, and keep it to yourself, dammit.

This is actually the number one rule of the Club, and in a sense it even supersedes masculinity, but not by much. Generally the two are part of a package, one package. Masculine = homophobic and vice versa. Like peanut butter and jelly, they just go together. If you are wimpy but homophobic, well, “At least you’re not a fag” is the attitude. We would tolerate you a bit more because although you are pitiful, at least you are not a menace, an outrage, or an abomination.

This does not necessarily boil down to hating gay men, though sadly it often does. A lot of Club members nowadays are more accepting and tolerant and excuse gay men from Club rules.

They’re not part of our Club, they are not welcome here anyway, and they are seen as outside of our society. They’re over there. Because they are not Club members, the rules do not apply to them. More Club members nowadays think that gay men can’t help it, and we accept them on a somewhat pity basis on the grounds that they can’t help it, and hating them would be like punching someone for being lefthanded. He couldn’t help his handedness. So gay men are exempted from the fierce homophobic rules of the Club. They can act as effeminate and faggy as they wish. It’s weird as Hell, but whatever. Maybe they can’t help that either. Maybe that’s part of getting wired up gay. We give them the benefit of the doubt. Besides, simpatico is a major Club rule and even applies to people outside the Club. See below.

2. BE MASCULINE, DAMMIT. Yep, not real masculine, but just masculine enough. This is called, “Walking the walk, and talking the talk.” If you are not at least masculine or macho enough, get out. You’re not part of our Club. The attitude is “Go over there with the women and fags or your wimpy, pathetic, pussyboy friends.” We don’t even like wimpy and seriously unmasculine, weak men. They’re pitiful and a bit disgusting, and they are not wanted in our circles. Act like a man, dammit! What are you, a girl? This is a minimum requirement for true Club membership, and it goes right along with Rule 1.

3. BE HETEROSEXUAL. A very masculine man who was seriously homophobic and not gay at all but nevertheless did not like women for some reason would still be accepted in the Club because he fulfills Rules 1 and 2, which are mandatory. People would think he was weird, but whatever. So Rule 3 is not mandatory, but most Club men definitely fill it anyway. He gets Club membership on a waiver basis because he fulfills Rules 1 and 2. We rarely see truly asexual men in the Club though. If you truly want full membership, you gotta like pussy. You get massive bonus points once we figure out that you are a regular,  normal, heterosexual, high-sex-drive pussyhound who is crazy about women or at least crazy about having sex with them. You don’t have to be having sex with them, but you get huge bonus points for aggressively wanting to do so.

4. GET LAID. This is actually the least important one. I have known seriously masculine, homophobic, apparently heterosexual men who could not get laid with God’s help. One was an extremely scary guy with a car repair place who wore leather all the time and always looked mean and angry.

He was accepted in the Club because he was a badass, but a lot of men did not want to deal with him because he was “just too full of hate.” Yes, you must be homophobic and masculine, being straight helps and you don’t really have to get laid, but if you are too mean and aggressive, you are “psycho,” and even most macho guys think you have gone overboard. You are seen as giving off bad vibes and living in a world of meanness and hate. Believe it or not, most Club men dislike the idea of living in a world of meanness and hate. Most Club men are actually trying to relax, not be angry or hate people, and be halfway nice most of the time. It’s called “being cool.” Even Mexican men are like this. Their version of it is called “simpatico.” and Mexican men are profoundly masculine, yet simpatico is nevertheless a  part of the machismo.

You don’t even have to get laid much. If other men see you for years without a woman, they would still accept you if you fulfill Rules 1-3. Extra bonus points if you at l least talk loudly and aggressively about women and sex with them in a lascivious, high-sex-drive sort of way. We know you’re OK inside, you’re just having a spell of bad luck, and almost all Club men have been through dry spells anyway. Most Club men know that getting women as a single man is not that easy even nowadays. Women don’t give it up for free easily.

Why do you think there is a Whore Market? And a pricey Whore Market at that. If women were easily giving it up for free all the time, the Whore Market would collapse. The fact that there is a Whore Market shows that women are actually operating what boils down to a Pussy Cartel which engages is mass price-fixing, monopoly tactics, and a lot of dirty tricks all to keep the price of sex and access to women’s bodies as high as possible. The Pussy Cartel runs something called the Pussy Market. The Pussy Market and the Whore Market are two different things. I am not sure how they relate, but the Whore Market very much needs the Pussy Cartel to limit access to sex so as to drive up the prices of the Whore Market’s product.

This Cartel the reason for the Jailbait Mass Hysteria. Women are terrified that if more JB’s become legal, a lot of men will choose boppers over real women, and the Pussy Market will crash. It’s all about keeping the price high. That’s what is behind all the outrage. Pure fear.

It’s the same reason that feminists are making desperate moves to try to keep men from getting mail order or overseas brides. Too much really scary competition, and more fear of a Market Collapse. A market on which prices are artificially inflated.

Why do you think so many men jump right into marriage? They get married to have lots of regular sex! Men don’t marry for love. That’s just some crap they tell their girlfriends and wives to keep them around. They marry for sex! Now some love might come along as side order, yes, but the sex is always the main course. Women will never figure this out, and they will continue to laughably think men marry for love. Nope!

So Club men are sympathetic to a homophobic, masculine, straight man who’s not having any luck. Almost all men in the Club have some low-level sexism and think women are a great big, huge, pain the ass, at times infuriating, endless headache of a problem. Sort of like a car that you really love, but it’s always in the shop.

It sounds course and crude, but most men use women as a place, product or even object to fulfill their sexual needs. Women are like sexual gas stations where you fill up your human body car. Yes, there is sometimes fondness, kindness, warmth, tenderness, and niceness at the same time. Indeed, pleasantries are often exchanged in the process, but the Sexual Pit Stop is their basic role. Some love might go along with this basic function, but that is actually peripheral. Probably no woman on Earth will ever accept this, but it’s the way it is, like it or not.

But if Club members see that guy with a woman over at his place or spending the night  there even one time, their opinion of him goes way up, sky high, and every Club member around wants to come up to him and give him five. He was a member of the Club before, but now he’s really a member. This means he is now what is called officially “a regular guy.” You become a regular guy by getting laid.

If you do very well with women and are a player, you are granted Hero status in the Club. You’re not even a Club member anymore. Now you are a super-member.

You are like a general who is covered with medals. Club men will praise you, buy you meals, etc. They will walk up to you and slap you on the back. Other men in the Club will walk up him with a “Can I have your autograph?” attitude. They will even put their arm around himyou, but it’s not seen as gay because you are a macho hero player, and everyone knows you’re not gay. Ordinarily, you have to be very careful getting physical with other men in the Club because the homophobia is so off the charts, but exceptions are made for the Player. He’s the Superstar. He’s The Man. The rules don’t apply as far as he goes.

But mostly the attitude in the Club towards Player is that he is simply hilarious. Everyone in the Club thinks it is absolutely hilarious how this guy gets so many women. The reason why he is hilarious and why he is a superstar hero is because it is actually very hard to be a real bigtime player. Only 6% of straight men have sex with over 100 females in their lives, and probably 95% want to. Or maybe it’s 100%.

Women will never figure this out either, and most women solipsistically think getting laid is utterly trivial for men. Women can get sex anytime they want, and women are solipsists by nature, so they think if they can do it, men can do it too.

Same thing with marriage. Women usually marry for love, and since women are solipsists, they think if women marry for love, then men must too.

Women just don’t get what it’s like to be a man.

I will say though that once a woman gets to her 40’s and 50’s, a lot of them have pretty much figured us out at least in part, and they accept us for being the way we are, mostly because they figure we can’t change, we are hopeless, and we are just doing what comes naturally. A lot of old women also understand men well too. But they still don’t completely get us. I am not sure if one woman has ever figured out men. Sometimes I wonder.


Filed under Christianity, Feminism, Gender Studies, Girls, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Islam, Jailbait, Man World, Mass Hysterias, Psychology, Religion, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Women