09 November 2016

The best analysis of the issues at stake in this presidential election.

I think Brexiteer's take on the issue involved in this election is superb and warrant highlighting till the election. Accordingly, I'm keeping this reminder of his analysis at the top of my blog until it's all over except the public executions.

If you haven't read his comment it is here.

21 October 2016

Pearls of expression.

Let’s not delude ourselves. America is ruled by the Five Cities, Boston, New York, Washington, Tel Aviv, and Hollywood.
"Ronald McDonald or Lucretia Borgia? In the Long Run, We Are all Dead." By Fred Reed, The Unz Review, 10/20/16.

20 October 2016

Election 2016 in a nutshell.

This is the best, most concise statement of the issues in the 2016 presidential contest:
So there we have it people. The debates are over and the choice has never been more clear...

If you feel that America is doing just fine, both domestically and internationally and all that is needed is more of the same; vote for her.

But if you think the previous eight years have accelerated America's decline, both at home and abroad and that a new direction is needed; vote for him.

If you feel that the biggest national dept in history is nothing much to worry about and that America can continue to borrow it's way into further debt indefinitely; vote for her.

But if you think that America needs to tackle its unprecedented debt by insisting its economic rivals cease protecting their own markets by cynically manipulating the value of their own currencies and start playing on a level playing field; vote for him.

If you feel that entering into endless proxy conflicts abroad is a great use of your most cherished national asset - the brave Men and Women who serve in your military; vote for her.

But if you think that American service Men and Women should only ever be used to protect America's direct interests and that other nations who rely on America's protection should contribute to the cost of that protection; vote for him.

If you feel that mass illegal immigration from the third world and all the adverse social deprivations associated with it, is good for America; vote for her.

But if you think that America should cease its policy of mass immigration from the third world until it can provide sufficiently for the people who are already in the country. And that America should finally start enforcing its existing laws on illegal immigration; vote for him.

If you feel that vilifying your law enforcement officers and whipping up racial tensions, in already gang infested and drug riddled inner cities, has made them better places to live; vote for her.

But if you think the people who live in America's cities deserve to be protected by strong and respected law enforcement agencies. And that the gang-crime that blights many of those cities needs to be tackled and tackled hard; vote for him.

If you feel that allowing your industries to sack their American workers and move to third world countries to take advantage of slave labour and then sell their goods back to you, without penalty, is an acceptable economic policy; vote for her.

But if you think that encouraging industries to remain within America and penalising those that try the slave foreign labour route will be good for America and American workers; vote for him.

If you feel that continuing to operate international trade agreements which allow your economic rivals to restrict your exports to them while they are allowed to flood your markets with there goods is wise or even economically sustainable; vote for her.

But if you think that the international trade agreements America is currently operating were poorly advised and have, in large part, contributed to America's economic decline and must be revisited, revised and redrafted so as to benefit America's economy rather than building up the economies of its rivals; vote for him.

If you feel that it is wise to ignore the fact that America's core values are under violent attack from people who obtained their vicious hatred of those values from the teachings of Islam. And that it is some how morally wrong to even mention the phrase "Islamic Terrorism" for fear of offending somebody's misplaced sensibilities; vote for her.

But if you think that America should acknowledge that many of the teachings of Islam are incompatible with the freedoms it holds dear, including equal rights for gays and women, and that people suspected of favouring such teachings should not be allowed into the country unchecked; vote for him.

If you feel that America's declining influence on the world stage and the continued disrespect and contempt America is now held in by many of its international rivals is something to be proud of; vote for her.

But if you think that America should prioritise forging alliances with nations who show it mutual respect and share its core values, and that are fighting against the same scourge of Islamic Terrorism America is fighting. While disengaging from nations that are openly disrespectful and that have values that are morally abhorrent to those your forefathers made so much effort to establish; vote for him.

If you feel that it is fine to be ruled by career politicians who have had to beg, steel and borrow hundreds of millions of dollars from self-interested groups to fund their political careers. Groups that naturally expect a return on their investments; vote for her.

But if you think that America has been poorly served by its political class - of both hews - for the past several decades and that the political system its self, has become so reliant on obtaining donations from self-interested groups, that now no person of integrity could ever make it into office. And if you believe that electing bought and payed for puppet politicians has cost America dearly and that only a self funded candidate can break the cycle of corruption; vote for him.

If you feel that a career politician who has become rich from so called 'public service' is likely to keep their promises 'this time' despite the countless empty and broken promises of their past. And that it's acceptable for a politician to justify their many mistakes, lies and let-downs buy merely laughing them off as "miss-steps" "brain freezes" or "miss-speaks"; vote for her.

But if you think that it is time to wrestle the reigns of power away from the people who have lead America into the mess in which it now finds itself and to give a chance to a non-politician, a proven employment creator with a solid record of business success, and who has brought up a beautiful family who love and respect them, a winner in every sense of the word and someone who obviously loves their country; vote for him.

Comment by Brexiteer on "Rigging Elections." By Steve Sailer, Taki's Magazine, 10/19/16.

Trump's eternal accomplishment.

So both parties are complicit in the dilution of native sovereignty. Reminds me of what Khrushchev said about our supposedly two-party system: "It's six of one and a half dozen of the other."

Anyway if Trump loses the election, he'll at least have some satisfaction in exposing the Republican Party for the two-faced fellow travelers they are, working hand-in-glove with Cultural Marxists to transform Amerika into a polyglot pot of feuding ethnic, sexual, and religious groups. . . .
Comment by jivemi20 on "Rigging Elections." By Steve Sailer, Taki's Magazine, 10/19/16.

Repeopling America.

The more Democrats realized they could obtain permanent hegemony not by winning over the American people, but by repeopling America, the more they denounced rational inquiry into the merits of immigration. If you read the WikiLeaks transcript of what Hillary secretly told the smart guys at Goldman Sachs about immigration policy for $225,000, you’ll notice it’s just the same lowbrow tripe you hear everywhere else about how immigration is who we are.
"Rigging Elections." By Steve Sailer, Taki's Magazine, 10/19/16 (emphasis added).

Compare this with Democrat betrayal today.

It’s fascinating to reread Democrats debating immigration a couple of decades ago because the intellectual quality of their arguments was so much higher back then. The “huddled masses” schmaltz tended to be a neoconservative Republican specialty in the later 20th century, while Democrats asked each other hardheaded questions about how more immigration would help blacks and union members.[1]
Republicans are just as bad now.

They all hide their betrayal behind the mantra of comprehensive immigration reform, namely, amnesty. And the "highest value" garbage.

[1] "Rigging Elections." By Steve Sailer, Taki's Magazine, 10/19/16 (emphasis added).

Democrats and foreigners and the rigging our elections.

Ironically, the most far-reaching scheme to rig this and future American elections isn’t being plotted in the Kremlin (as Hillary Clinton and the ruling media warn). Nor is it being hammered out in K Street offices by lobbyists, Democratic operatives, and their press counterparts (as Donald Trump suggests).

Instead, Democrats and their auxiliaries in the media routinely boast of their dream of turning America into a one-party state through changing who gets to vote in American elections.

Strikingly, this vast conspiracy to dilute the sovereignty of American voters by inviting in ringers from abroad is not covered up, nor even excused as aggressive-but-legal political hardball.

Instead, the dilution of the voting power of American citizens is praised lavishly as representing the highest value of “who we are as Americans.”

"Rigging Elections." By Steve Sailer, Taki's Magazine, 10/19/16 (emphasis added).

17 October 2016

Chaos on the menu.

That Axis of Evil deal always was a head scratcher.
9/11 was the neoconservatives “new Pearl Harbor” that they wrote they needed in order to launch their wars in the Middle East. George W. Bush’s first Secretary of the Treasury said that the topic of Bush’s first cabinet meeting was the invasion of Iraq. This was prior to 9/11. In other words, Washington’s wars in the Middle East were planned prior to 9/11.[1]
This lends some credence to General Wesley Clark's report that a Pentagon general told him a few weeks after 9/11 there were U.S. plans to "take out" Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Iran. The Secretary's report is of something too early and Clark's report is of something too broad (i.e., greater than three countries in the said Axis of Evil). How does this square with the stock version of (just) Afghanistan and Iraq? Was the "Arab Spring" an opportunity to add Egypt to the list?

I've read several articles speculating on the real U.S. objective(s) in the Middle East – Qatar gas pipeline rather than the Iranian one, destabilize Russia and China, etc. Where Syria and Iraq are concerned, I find it credible that the U.S. is, as usual, at the beck and call of Israel and thus helping to keep all potential threats to it at bay by turning nearby countries upside down or slicing them into smaller pieces.

It's a big topic that requires a lot more background knowledge than I have right now. The idea does occur to me, however, that the whole Syrian fiasco and magic act is worthy of sustained and close attention. Like the Spanish Civil War, our unconstitutional war against Syria has a boatload of foreign intervenors and disturbers involved and, as of now, I'll say the lesson that is beginning to slowly rise from the muck is one of U.S. duplicity and reliance on grisly terrorists to do its dirty work.

Be that as it may, it's clear that whatever the U.S. is doing in the Middle East isn't for public consumption. The American public sure as hell isn't in on the plan, which, as I've indicated, is something that is at heart rotten and dishonorable.

[1] "The Real Humanitarian Crisis is Not in Aleppo." By Paul Craig Roberts, Information Clearing House, 10/17/16.

Saving ISIS.

Why do we hear only of the “humanitarian crisis in Aleppo” and not of the humanitarian crisis everywhere else in Syria where the evil that rules in Washington has unleashed its ISIL mercenaries to slaughter the Syrian people? Why do we not hear about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen where the US and its Saudi Arabian vassal are slaughtering Yemeni women and children? Why don’t we hear about the humanitarian crisis in Libya where Washington destroyed a country leaving chaos in its place? Why don’t we hear about the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, ongoing now for 13 years, or the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan now 15 years old?

The answer is that the crisis in Aleppo is the crisis of Washington losing its ISIL mercenaries to the Syrian army and Russian air force. The jihadists sent by Obama and the killer bitch Hillary (“We came, we saw, he died”) to destroy Syria are being themselves destroyed. The Obama regime and the Western presstitutes are trying to save the jihadists by covering them in the blanket of “humanitarian crisis.”[1]
You have to weep for this once great nation. Its ruling class has reduced it to supporting ISIS, whose soldiers and leaders make loathsome scum seem like angelic messengers in comparison.

[1] "The Real Humanitarian Crisis is Not in Aleppo." By Paul Craig Roberts, Information Clearing House, 10/17/16 (emphasis added).

Hypocrisy alert.

Recently the U.S. official pronouncements and MSM propaganda commentary regarding Syrian and Russian military operations in E. Aleppo have involved much breast beating and crocodile tears about civilian casualties.[1]

Assad is particularly criminal for his forces' use of "barrel bombs" which lack the sleek lines, rakish fins, and elegant paint jobs of the bombs that the U.S. planes drop in Syria. These barrel bombs apparently contain shrapnel, which is unheard of in the history of explosive ordnance. (Here are some video clips of barrel bombs being used against civilians, some bombs falling in the vicinity of the positions of "civilians" yelling "Allahu ahkbar" and manning heavy-caliber machine guns [4:20].)

Anyway, this bombing is considered "indiscriminate" and is causing much angst in the ranks of the State Department and Defense Department.[2]

Contrast that with the U.S.-supported Iraqi attack on Mosul that began yesterday. There it's a much different matter as Military Necessity appears to take precedence, and for the civilians still in Mosul it's sauve qui peut, baby. An ex-U.S. Special Forces gentleman was on Fox last night (Kelly?) talking about possible civilian casualties and he made the observation that "we can't tie our hands" beforehand when conducting operations of this kind. That's actually true. The purpose of military operations is to find, fix, and destroy the enemy, not to conduct social welfare campaigns.

Check out this short video of French artillery supporting the attack on Mosul and ask yourself if it's likely that the commander of that unit even knows where ISIS troops can be fired on without injuring civilians. Do you think the safety of civilians in Mosul is his primary concern?

There's a double standard at work here. The U.S. can support heavy, blanket bombing of and artillery strikes on Mosul in support of objectives of which it approves. (I couldn't find video of the rocket launcher barrage from one launcher I saw yesterday. Rocket launchers are area weapons not pinpoint weapons.) Assad and the Russians, however, are war criminals for conducing operations against insurgent military forces in Syrian cities.

Urban warfare is every infantryman's nightmare for the unlimited cover available to the enemy behind every wall or window. Clearing and holding urban real estate is not an exact science conducted with laser beams and algorithms that identify which buildings shelter the enemy. But that exactitude is required only of Syria and Russia. It's an impossible and unrealistic requirement. The breast beating about indiscriminate bombing of civilians and "barrel bombs" is just Academy Award-level fake outrage.

[1] Innocent civilians, of course, as all guilty civilians have already made their unimpeded way from E. Aleppo for the safety of W. Aleppo, where they are shelled by the al-Qaida franchise still in E. Aleppo. We bring clarity to a confusing situation.
[2] FoxNews and CNN emphasize that barrel bombs also fall on wakes, aid centers, refugee camps, and hospitals and deliver chlorine gas. Very possibly true in some instances though verification is in order. (I doubt all attributions of the use of gas to Assad's forces, let it be said.) Note, however, that the issue, even assuming all these civilian casualties (excepting gas casualties), is what standard applies? The video in second paragraph is part of the discussion as well, just as much as the attacks described in this footnote.