Yesterday, I made a post giving my thoughts on the stupidity surrounding the latest Trump scandal, namely, children of illegal immigrants being separated from their parents by border patrol agents, and put in “Concentration camps”. Today I came across a quick comic that illustrates the stupidity of the prevailing narrative quite well.
Is the sheer stupidity of the manufactured outrage clear now?
It’s no secret that I’ve strongly supported Trump the past few years. I’ve lost friends in real life for doing that, but I haven’t let that deter me, because it’s more important to me to say what I believe is right, rather than what is popular. I truly believed that out of all the potential candidates in the 2016 election, that he was the best choice available, and I still stand by that belief. However, contrary to what readers of this blog, or those former real life friends, may or may not believe, I am not an ideologue, nor am I the kind of person who will attempt to defend the indefensible. When Trump does something that I believe is wrong, I will not make excuses for him, nor will I betray my own beliefs for him. Just as I found myself a little over a year ago, I once again find myself having to criticise Trump for an action that he has undertaken, namely, his actions towards the Iran nuclear deal.
In the years since the 9/11 attacks, the Western world has had to deal with Islamic terrorist attacks on a pretty frequent basis, and this has really gone into overdrive in the past five years or so. It is also quite well known that the vast majority of this terrorism can be linked back to Saudi Arabia, a country which has one of the worst records when it comes to “Human Rights”, and a country which is known for supporting groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, groups which have the blood of countless innocent people on their hands. Yet despite these obvious facts, Saudi Arabia is never a target of Western regime change. Saudi Arabia never suffers sanctions. Saudi Arabia barely even suffers so much as simple criticism, either from the American political establishment, or the tightly controlled mainstream media.
Just look at the video above. The US official is asked an uncomfortable question about the hypocritical double standards that the US has in regards to Saudi Arabia and Iran. He spends about 20 awkward seconds in silence trying to think of an answer, only to start rambling a non-answer instead. This is because there is absolutely zero justification for how the US treats Iran in comparison to how they treat Saudi Arabia, to the point were it’s impossible to even give a plausible bullshit response.
Meanwhile Iran, a Shiite Muslim country which wages war against the Sunni terrorist groups such as ISIS, and which has never been conclusively linked to any terrorist activity in the US or Europe (that I’m currently aware of at least), is without evidence, treated as one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism on the planet, is scrutinised by the international community (under US leadership) in everything that it does, and has sanctions imposed on it just for existing. This isn’t because a strong Iran is a treat to the wellbeing of the people of the US or Europe. No, this is done because Iran is perceived as a threat to one very specific country.
Thanks to the internet, and the new ways of spreading information, more and more people are waking up to the “other side of the story” in regards to Israel and its conflicts in the Middle East. It’s becoming more obvious that Israel isn’t just an “innocent victim” of Muslim aggression, and it’s becoming easier to understand that Muslim hatred towards Western civilisation is motivated by a lot more than George Bush’s idiotic explanation of “They hate us for our freedoms.”
No, they hate us because of our undying support for, and our aiding and abetting of, a country which has for the past 70 years, been committing acts of aggression against them. Murdering them. Stealing their land. Threatening them with annihilation. And using its influence in our countries, to get us to fight their battles for them. Obviously, an understanding of history will show that Muslim aggression would be happening regardless, but we’re certainly not helping with our own unnecessary aggression towards them.
It’s an open secret that Israel has an undeclared supply of nuclear weapons, an estimation of anywhere between 80 and 400 of them. Israel is one of the few countries that has never signed the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Nothing is done about this. Yet Iran, a country which has signed the treaty, and has agreed to a deal to develop a peaceful nuclear program, under the watch of inspectors from the world’s great powers, has been undermined and slandered ever since, by a country which has been crying wolf about the “”threat” of both Iran and Iraq before it, for decades.
“Sure he lied all those other times, but he might be telling the truth now. He’s one of God’s chosen people afterall. If we can’t trust God’s chosen people, who can we trust?”
And unfortunately, Trump has gone along with it. It’s not really surprising, because in fairness, he did outright say that he was planning on doing this, during the time that he was campaigning. To give credit where credit is due, he does seem to sincerely try and implement the policies that he ran on, both the good and the bad, but it’s still disheartening to see him go along with such a stupid decision.
Anytime something like this happens, whether it’s bombing Syria, or backing Iran into a corner, I’m concerned that it could set off a conflict, which with how precarious international relations are right now, could escalate to the level of a World War. This is why I must make it clear that I strongly oppose this action on Trump’s part, and I condemn him for it. I think the Iran deal was a good thing, and it’s something I have to give Obama credit for. I’m not pleased at all with Trump for backing out and if I was Kim Jong-un, this would make a very strong negative impression on me.
There is however one potential upside to this action. It once again draws attention to how much power and influence Israel has over American foreign policy, and it might help wake up more people to how much of a problem this is. If enough people realise that America’s policies are done, not for the benefit of Americans, but instead for the benefit of someone else, who gives back nothing in return, they may finally start demanding that changes be made. And if those changes are made, we might start seeing some improvements in the world.
We live in a world full of gullible idiots, who can easily be manipulated by appealing to their emotions and their naive belief that they can trust the word of “authorities”, “experts”, or figures who they perceive as being smarter and better informed than themselves. It doesn’t matter how often these “authorities” and “experts” lie, and get caught doing so. With enough willpower, they’re able to get people believing them again, just by forcing their preferred narrative hard enough and long enough.
Ever since 9/11, the US and its allies have been engaged in an almost perpetual war. The targeted enemy has changed a few times, but all these wars are basically just an extension of the same conflict. And all these wars have been based on more than their fair share of lies. It’s well known at this point, that Saudi Arabia were to blame for the 9/11 attacks. Yet the US used it as justification to declare war of Afghanistan instead, who had nothing to do with it.
Then about a year and half later, they declare war on Iraq, allegedly because Saddam Hussein was “confirmed” to have weapons of mass destruction. We now know that this was not true at all and no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq. It was never confirmed that he had these weapons. Nor was it a stupid mistake, or a case of carelessness on their part. It was a complete lie that was deliberately and cynically delivered, to justify a war of aggression, to a naive and trusting population.
Look at how easily he lies. He should have been hauled before The Hague for this.
“The main reason we went into Iraq was because we thought he had weapons of Mass Destruction”. No you didn’t, you fucking liar. You just used that as a justification for an aggressive and unnecessary war.
Then of course, we have the situation with Libya a few years back. I’ve already covered the lies and inaccuracies in the narrative surrounding that topic, in great detail here. In every one of these situations, Western politicians, and the mainstream media, told terrible lies, in order to justify their actions. Then when they were finished, the countries were left in ruins, with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of ordinary people left dead. All this done, allegedly in the name of “human rights” and “democracy”.
Now here we are with Syria. Just like with the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Gaddafi in Libya, we have Bashar al-Assad, another brutal, genocidal maniac (if we’re to believe the mainstream media), who needs to be taken out, in order to protect the “human rights” of the ordinary Syrian people. Just as I did with Libya, I’ve also discussed in detail, how nonsensical this narrative is as well, and that can be read right here.
Unusually, unlike most other countries that have come into the crosshairs for Western sanctioned “regime change”, Syria has actually managed to fight back and survive for quite some time. The war has been going on for more than seven years at this point, and yet, Assad is still in power. In fact, he’s winning the war, pushing out the opposition, and based on current projections, it’s only a matter of time, until the war is over, with a decisive victory for the Assad government.
Quite recently, Trump announced that he planned on pulling American military forces out of Syria, one of the issues he ran his campaign on, and one of the reasons why I so strongly supported him, over his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Yet a few days after he announced this, a chemical weapon attack is alleged to have happened in Syria, with the finger being pointed directly at the Syrian government. With this alleged attack, there are calls for Trump to “take action” of some kind in Syria, and we all know from experience, what that means. They want Trump to attack Syria and get rid of Assad.
I think we need to think about this whole thing critically. What logical reason could Assad have had for using chemical weapons, especially at a time when he’s decisively winning the war, rather than having his back up against the wall, and at a time when the US was getting ready to leave the country? It’s obvious what the reaction would be to the use of chemical weapons, so why would he do it. We’re left with one of four possible explanations in my opinion.
Personally, when I look at the four possible explanations, I think option 3 is the most likely to be true, though I’m not discounting the possibility of option 4 either. It has come out that the UN is unable to confirm that any chemical attack even happened, so is it really hard to believe that perhaps it never did happen at all?
That perhaps, all the footage we’ve seen of the “victims” was actually staged by actors in a studio somewhere, exactly like the plot of that “Wag the Dog” film?
On the other hand, lets ignore all this and pretend that hypothetically speaking, we do believe that the chemical attacks were real, and that the Assad government were the ones behind them. Lets say, the US does come up with a moral justification to retaliate against these blatant war crimes and violations of human rights, despite the fact that they never respond to the war crimes and human rights violations that are committed by Israel and Saudi Arabia. Even if it is true, can anyone answer this question?
Does any of this justify starting another Middle Eastern war, one which could potentially drag in Russia and escalate to the level of a World War?
Even if Assad is guilty, how exactly is bombing his country (which will naturally include innocent civilians) and potentially starting a war that will result in hundreds of millions of deaths worldwide, and the potential destruction of the entire planet, an appropriate response? What is the justification for that? Even if Assad is brutally murdering innocent civilians with chemical weapons (and for the record, I don’t believe that he is), is starting the biggest and most destructive war in history, really the right response?
No, I don’t think any person who isn’t a psychopath, believes this. Any non-psychopathic person would find this scenario horrifying. But here’s the problem though. People have this self-centered belief that just because they think a certain way, that others think the same way. It doesn’t work like that. To scoff at the possibility of World War breaking out, is not only incredibly naive. It’s also incredibly arrogant thinking. The world is dominated by psychopaths, who have absolutely no conscience, and don’t give a damn about the consequences of their actions. If they think a nuclear war will be beneficial for their goals, don’t think for a second that they’ll think like you and me, and decide against it. They’ll do it in a heartbeat. And we’ve seen how much they’ve demonised both Syria and Russia the past few years.
I don’t believe that a big war is definitely going to happen. I’d like to think that common sense will win out in the end. But I’m not naive enough to dismiss the possibility entirely. I really feel as if all the anti-Russian hysteria the past few years, has been to condition the population to develop a visceral hatred towards them, and a fear that they’re the ones who are being aggressive towards us. That hasn’t been done for nothing. I really think there’s a possibility that they might very well try and start something with Russia, and at the same time, present it to the public as a defensive measure against “years of documented Russian aggression.”
“Russia interfered in our (UK) democracy and caused Brexit.” (No evidence)
“Russia interfered in our (US) democracy, and helped that racist Trump win.” (No evidence)
“Russia aggressively annexed Crimea.” (After the west sponsored a coup which toppled the democratically elected pro-Russian, Ukrainian government)
“Russia poisoned that Spy on British soil.” (No evidence)
“Russia is working with the madman Assad, who is using chemical weapons on his own people.” (No evidence)
“So now we’re going to stand up to those Russian aggressors and fight back.”
Can you honestly say you couldn’t see something like this happening?
We just can’t go a single day without some kind of Trump scandal causing massive levels of outrage in both the mainstream media and Social media. The latest thing to come out is that he apparently, in reference to countries such as Haiti, El Salvador, and various African countries, asked “Why are we (America) having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Needless to say, the media is absolutely appalled by this question. How dare he make such racist comments about these countries?
But here’s the thing though.
Where exactly is the lie?
To me, it seems as if all he did was make a simple statement of fact. These countries are shitholes. That’s why their populations are so desperate to flee from them in favour of coming to the United States. But they’re also shitholes for a very specific reason. They’re shitholes because of their demographics.
I’ve said it numerous times, and I’ll say it again. A country is a reflection of its people, not the other way around. The reason why America is such a prosperous country, is the same reason why Canada, New Zealand, and Australia are. It’s because it was founded by Europeans, who created a society based on European values. If it was simply down to geographical location, then why didn’t the Native Americans have the same success with building a great nation, as their European colonisers did?
Haiti on the other hand is primarily populated by people of Sub-Saharan African descent, and just like your average Sub-Saharan African country, is a corrupt, poverty stricken shithole, with pathetic living standards. Haiti has actually been occupied by America on three occasions in the 20th century. Between 1915 and 1934, between 1959 and 1963, and between 1994 and 1995. On all three occasions, America imposed order and stability on the country, even building much needed infrastructure such as roads, schools, hospitals, bridges, etc, during the first of these occupations. Yet as soon as they handed back control to the Haitians and departed, the country would soon after fall apart again every single time. It’s one thing to not be able to build a functioning country, but the fact that they’ve been handed a pre-built country on multiple occasions, and have failed to even maintain it, really says it all. This is much the same as what we saw happen when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, or what we’re seeing happening in real time to South Africa post-Apartheid. Functioning civilisations are seeing a power transfer from one demographic to another, and that new demographic repeatedly fails to maintain what was handed to them.
So when you take all this into consideration, then is it not a fair question to ask? Why is America taking in people from these shithole countries? How exactly does America benefit from their presence? What do they contribute? What skills or abilities do they have that can’t either be found within America itself, or from non-Shithole countries (Trump cited Norway specifically as a country he would like to see immigration from instead)?
A country is a reflection of its people, not the other way around. And after seeing what the Haitians have done to Haiti on more than one occasion, then does it not stand to reason, that they’d only end up doing the same thing to America as well?
There’s some fantastic news in regards to the Syrian civil war which has been taking place for the past 5 years and seemed as if it would never end. The forces of good, the Syrian government and their Russian and Iranian allies have finally succeeded in crushing the remaining ISIS opposition and driving them out of their last stronghold within Syrian and Iraqi territory. This is wonderful news, except for those who profit off of human misery and death.
Islamic State militants withdrew Thursday from their last stronghold in Syria, a strategic town near the border with Iraq, following a government offensive that has effectively left the extremist group’s fighters dispersed in villages and small towns in the desert.
The Syrian military declared the town liberated after intense battles that killed a large number of militants, including leaders. The military said they are still chasing other ISIS militants in different directions in the desert.
“The liberation of Boukamal is of great importance because it is a declaration of the fall of this group’s project in the region generally and the collapse of its supporters’ illusions to divide it, control large parts of the Syria-Iraq borders and secure supply routes between the two countries,” Army spokesperson Gen. Ali Mayhoub said in a televised statement.
Syrian pro-government media said Syrian troops had clashed with remnants of ISIS militants in the town after they entered it late Wednesday. On Thursday, they reported the town clear of ISIS fighters.
Pro-Syrian media reported the town was liberated. Al-Ikhbariya TV’s journalist reported from the road to the town, joyfully breaking out on camera: “Daesh is finished. Live.”
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said government forces and allied troops, including Iraqi forces who linked from across the border, are combing through Boukamal after ISIS militants withdrew.
With the collapse of ISIS in Boukamal, Islamic State militants have no major territorial control in Syria and Iraq and are believed to have dispersed in the desert west and east of the Euphrates River. U.S. officials estimated that there were between 2,500 and 3,500 ISIS militants around Boukamal and that leading members of the group were also believed to have taken refuge in the town. The group has a small presence near the capital Damascus.
ISIS has suffered consecutive defeats at the hands of separate but simultaneous offensives in Iraq and Syria by the Russian-backed Syrian forces and allied militias as well as U.S.-backed Iraqi and Syrian fighters.
Despite its fall, the group’s media apparatus has remained active and its fighters are likely to keep up their insurgency from desert areas.
The swift fall of Boukamal in eastern Deir el-Zour province was accelerated after Iraqi forces seized Qaim, the town across the border last weekend, also controlling a strategic crossing between the two countries.
Iraqi militia forces participate
A senior Iraqi official said there was an agreement Tuesday to send Iraqi paramilitaries to Syria to take part in the Boukamal operation, adding that the Syrians were to supply them with weapons and gear. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters.
An Iraqi spokesperson for the Popular Mobilization Forces has told The Associated Press last week that his forces, which are part of the Iraqi security forces, will participate in the operation and will head north to protect the borders and secure the road from Iran to Lebanon.
Boukamal is the last urban centre for the militants in both Iraq and Syria where Syrian troops — backed by Russia and Iranian-supported militias — and U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces are vying for control of the strategic border town.
Washington is wary of increasing Iran influence in the area and has backed the SDF in their bid to uproot ISIS from the borders with Iraq. The proximity of forces in the area has raised concerns about potential clashes between them as they approach Boukamal from opposite sides of the Euphrates River, and now from across the border with Iraq.
It was not clear if the government seizure of the town means the end of the race for control of territory previously held by ISIS.
So far the Kurdish-led Syria Democratic Forces have focused on the area east of the Euphrates, seizing a number of oil and gas fields and securing large swathes of areas along the border with Iraq, as well as the newly liberated Raqqa city.
So it seems that there are still some jihadists in Syria, who have managed to evade capture or death so far. Personally, I’m really hoping that the Syrian military hunts them down like vermin and brutally exterminates them before they have the chance to flee to Europe, for example to Sweden…
…Or perhaps to the UK…
…where they’ll be treated far better than they deserve.
Also, doesn’t this mean that there’s no longer any excuse for this so called “refugee crisis” that has been destroying Europe the past few years? The story we were fed was that there was a war in Syria that people were desperately fleeing for their lives from, and this is why the entirety of the population of the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia, were flooding into Europe.
Of course we all know that this story was complete crap right from the beginning. The “refugee crisis” was always about destroying the homogeneity of European nation states, and the Syrian civil war, along with the chaos in Libya following the fall of Gaddafi’s regime, was just a convenient excuse to justify it. I was pointing this obvious reality out at least two and half years ago. The real goal is, and always has been, about implementing the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan, but if they were to come out and admit that and what it involves (nothing less than the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous European peoples), it would be resisted. So they prey on people’s altruism towards “suffering refugees” and create a false consensus in the media that the majority of people in Europe support helping them (even in situations were it’s blatantly obvious that they’re just economic migrants coming from countries far away from any warzone), and because the majority of people are politically correct cowards who don’t want to commit “wrongthink”, they go along with the narrative, and don’t resist their own ethnic cleansing.
Now that ISIS is effectively defeated and the Syrian Civil war is practically over, that justification no longer exists. But do I believe the current migrant crisis is going to come to an end because of this? Nope, absolutely not, because it was never about the Syrian civil war. More likely, I reckon they’ll just look for another excuse to justify its continuation, and I’m going to make a prediction as to what I think that justification will be. There are a lot of problems with Saudi Arabia right now, both internally, and in regards to its relationship with Lebanon. I could easily see something major kicking off there in the near future and when that happens, that will be the new excuse given for the “worst refugee crisis that the world has seen since World War 2”. Just you watch.
We’re a few days removed from what was apparently the worst mass shooting in American history, beating out the previous record holder from a little under a year and half ago, when Omar Mateen went on a shooting spree in a gay nightclub. The death toll currently stands at 59, with another 500+ injured. At this moment, there’s still very little information about what exactly has happened. We know that the shooter was a white man in his 60s by the name of Stephen Paddock, but we don’t know yet why he did it.
Of course the usual cohort of drooling retards on the internet are chomping at the bit to label him as a “white supremacist terrorist”, simply because he’s a white man who killed a lot of people, and are outraged that he hasn’t been officially declared one… at least not yet. These idiots think that this is an example of a double standard that favour white people, whereby a brown skinned person of the Muslim faith will instantly be labeled as a terrorist for committing an attack, whereas a white man won’t. Of course anyone who has followed this blog will know this is a blatant lie. When the Charlottesville incident happened for example, the media instantly denounced it as an act of white supremacist terrorism, before any facts were established, and demanded that Trump specifically condemn white supremacism, rather than just hatred and violence in general. Compare this to the aftermath of the average Muslim attack, and the instant go to narrative is usually that the attacker was suffering from a “mental illness” (just read any of my previous posts about Islamic attacks and see this for yourself).
No, anyone who actually pays attention to what is really going on, as opposed to making up narratives in their heads, will realise that the media and political establishment will bend over backwards to avoid using the word “terrorist” when a Muslim attacks, but will look for any excuse possible to apply it to “white supremacy” or “right wing extremism”, no matter how poor the supporting evidence is. Inevitably, these narratives always collapse when the facts start coming out, but it sure doesn’t stop them from trying their best.
So I don’t know where this ridiculous narrative that there is an attempt to avoid labeling white attackers as terrorists, came from. I personally think that it’s just a fantasy that idiotic left wing extremists invented in order to maintain their delusions that white people are privileged oppressors and everyone else is an oppressed victim, in the face of facts that debunk this idiocy.
The thing is, terrorism has a very specific definition and while two attacks can look identical of the surface, one might fit this definition perfectly, whereas the other will not. It has nothing to do with the attack itself, but rather the motivation behind it.
If a Muslim attacker is yelling “ALLAHU AKBAR” or “DEATH TO THE INFIDELS”, then it’s pretty obvious that his motivation for the attack is political, and therefore fits the definition of terrorism. It isn’t considered an act of terrorism just because a Muslim did it. In a situation like this however, we don’t yet know his motivation, so we cannot say for certain that it does fit the definition of terrorism. Maybe it will come out that he had a political motivation and in that case, he absolutely will fit the definition, but until that information is available, we don’t know yet, and cannot definitively say that this was a terrorist attack.
However, the fact that there hasn’t been much of an attempt at all from the media or the authorities, to label this particular attack an example of white terrorism, is indeed quite suspicious to me. Normally it happens immediately, yet here we are days later and there’s nothing. There’s still no explanation for what has happened. This leads me to believe that they might know a lot more than they’re letting on, and are worried about it getting out. ISIS have made the claim that he was a recent Muslim convert, and carried out the attack for them. I’m skeptical that this is true, because ISIS seems to claim responsibility for every attack that happens, but I’m not going to rule out the possibility of it being true, until we get an explanation.
Another theory I’ve heard doing the rounds is that he was a member of Antifa, and specifically chose his target (a country music concert), because based on demographics of the people who like that kind of music, it was mostly going to be attended by white, Republican, Trump supporters, the kind of people that Antifa believe it is perfectly justified to use violence against. Again, there’s no conclusive evidence yet to support this, but much like with the ISIS theory, I’m not going to rule it out as a possibility. Either one of these narratives would be a major setback to the media and political establishment, hence why it wouldn’t surprise me that they could try to cover them up by not releasing any information about the true motivation for the attack at all. I think if he genuinely was a “white supremacist” or a “right wing extremist” that they would have already said so by now. If he wasn’t, then better for them to say nothing and allow people to think for themselves that he was one, than release the truth and reveal that he wasn’t.
Not missing an opportunity to politicise tragedies, the anti-gun crowd have been coming out and demanding more “gun control” in light of what has happened. I’m always suspicious when I see politicians talking about their concern for human life and the wellbeing of their citizens. At the same time that they’re talking about gun control, they’re waging pointless and destructive wars all over the world, and importing millions of violent and incompatible people to live among their citizens, with no regard for the dangers. Their actions suggests that they don’t give a damn about human life at all, and any talk about gun control is due to an ulterior motive.
Now just to make things clear, I’m no gun fanatic myself, but I would like to address this situation fairly. The general idea being presented is that America’s high levels of gun proliferation is what is causing its high levels of gun violence, and that restricting gun ownership would reduce this significantly. However, I think this is an oversimplification of what’s going on. Switzerland is a country with very liberal gun laws, and they don’t see much gun crime at all. America itself has always had a high level of gun ownership and in decades past, it was so safe, that even schools were able to have gun clubs.
It’s really only in recent decades that gun violence has gotten out of control in America. Therefore I believe that when you take that into consideration, as well as the situation in countries like Switzerland, that gun violence is a symptom of a problem that has occurred due to changes that have taken place in America the past few decades, rather than the problem itself. Banning guns might in theory make it more difficult for violent, dangerous people, to have access to a means to commit their violent acts, but it won’t get to the root of the problem, which can only be solved by trying to understand what has changed in America between the time when it was perfectly safe for kids to bring guns to school, and now, were there are countless shootings every day, with major incidents such as this latest one in Las Vegas, happening on an all to regular basis. Why is there so much more violence in America these days? That’s the question that needs to be answered.
This story is definitely one that I’ll be keeping an eye on over the next few days. I have a feeling that there’s a lot more to this than we’re hearing about so far. It will definitely be interesting to see what new information will come out, especially when we finally learn what the motive for the attack was. Something tells me that whatever it is, it won’t sit well with the media and political establishment, and the narratives that they would prefer to propagate.
Finally a bit of good news from America. After endless attempts from lower courts to derail this policy, that I would regard as both “common sense” and “not extensive enough”, the US Supreme Court has finally ruled that Trump’s so called “Muslim ban” (ie, a temporary ban on immigration from 6 countries that just happen to be Muslim majority, and which are considered to be potential terrorist hotspots), is in fact constitutional.
THE US SUPREME Court is letting the Trump administration enforce most of its 90-day ban on travellers from six Muslim-majority countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it.
Just for the record, I think it’s absolute insanity that it even had to go this far. I think it’s absurd that the elected President can have his orders overruled by any random judge in the country, even in the lowest of courts. I do understand that there needs to be some way to keep in line and to make sure that he doesn’t violate the constitution with his orders, but the Supreme Court alone should be the one court with the power to do so.
The action today is a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his presidency to date.
Controversial… even though a small majority of US citizens actually support the ban. In fact, a higher percentage of US citizens support the ban, than support Trump himself. The only reason this became such a controversy, was because of a vocal minority of lunatics complaining about it, and getting a platform to do so, from the treacherous mainstream media. The majority of people have seen the consequences that mass immigration from the Muslim world has had on Europe, and don’t want to see a similar epidemic of rapes, child grooming, acid attacks, terrorism, etc., to happen in America as well.
The court did leave one category of foreigners protected, those “with a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”, the court said in an unsigned opinion. The justices will hear arguments in the case in October.
And here’s hoping they’ll decide in October that the original ban wasn’t extensive enough, and start including other countries, particularly Saudi Arabia.
A number of groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have sharply criticised the ban, saying it unfairly targets Muslims.
No, because there are plenty of Muslim majority countries in the world, including some of the most populous ones, such as Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria etc, which aren’t included in the ban, and non-Muslim minorities living in the targeted countries, are also subject to the ban. Doesn’t seem unfair to me and even if was, does anybody honestly care? The American people have their own needs, and those of their loved ones to worry about, and can hardly be expected to put the needs of of citizens in countries which have adversarial relationships with America, ahead of their own.
Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours after being cleared by courts.
The anticipation is killing me.
The ban would apply to citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Please add more.
The Trump administration said the ban was needed to allow an internal review of the screening procedures for visa applicants from those countries. That review should be complete before 2 October, the first day the justices could hear arguments in their new term.
Why is this unreasonable again?
It’s a well known fact that America and Europe’s greatest ally in the Middle East is Israel. What isn’t as well known, is that their second greatest ally is Saudi Arabia. You know Saudi Arabia right? That’s the country which carries out public beheadings, has the death penalty for homosexuality, punishes victims of rape for the “crime of adultery” etc. Basically, Saudi Arabia is what you would get, if ISIS was a country. Yet somehow, this country is apparently a key ally of the liberal West, whose value system is supposed to be the exact opposite of all this.
Anyway, an investigation was conducted in the UK with regards to foreign funding of terrorism in the country. Apparently the report might not ever see the light of day, because it reveals something that is pretty well known to anyone who actually pays attention and researches this topic… that Saudi Arabia are the ones to blame.
An investigation into the foreign funding of extremist Islamist groups may never be published, the Home Office has admitted.
Sure why would the public want to know something like that? Why would the public care about finding out who is financing the terrorists that keep killing them?
The inquiry commissioned by David Cameron, was launched as part of a deal with the Liberal Democrats in December 2015, in exchange for the party supporting the extension of British airstrikes against Isis into Syria.
Yeah, sure. Airstrikes against ISIS. The same ISIS who are at war with Assad. The same Assad that David Cameron said, needs to be removed from power. Are we really supposed to believe that Cameron was bombing ISIS at the same time he was saying that Assad has to go?
But although it was due to be published in the spring of 2016, it has not been completed and may never be made public due to its “sensitive” contents.
“Sensitive”, meaning that it might anger the British public to learn that their government, as well as other governments all across the Western world, are allied with a country which finances the terrorists that are responsible for the spate of attacks in Europe the last few years.
It is thought to focus on Saudi Arabia, which the UK recently approved £3.5bn worth of arms export licences to.
The UK (and the US), as well as other Western states, arm Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia then arms terrorists. Terrorists then use arms to kill Western citizens. Therefore, Western governments are directly responsible for their own citizens being killed by terrorists.
A spokesperson from the Home Office told The Independent a decision on the publication of the report would be taken “after the election by the next government”.
Of course. It might effect the way the people choose to vote, if they found out that their government is arming the people who keep murdering them on the streets. My guess as well, is that the report won’t actually get published (at least not if the Conservative Party win). It will be flushed down the memory hole.
But in a separate interview with The Guardian, a spokesperson said the report may never be published, describing its contents were “very sensitive”.
It might offend our great ally Saudi Arabia. Sure, they share absolutely none of our values, and they’re directly responsible for so many deaths in our country, but we need them. They’re a great and trusted ally in our conflicts with all those other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya etc, that never actually did anything to us.
Tom Brake, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, has written a letter to the Prime Minister pressing her on when the report will be published and what steps she proposes to take to address “one of the root causes of violent extremism in the UK”.
She’ll take absolutely no steps whatsoever. Not only that, she won’t even try to defend it, because there is literally no defence whatsoever. For example, lets look at this video, where an official is asked to justify their condemnation of Iran’s alleged lack of democracy, while turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s much more blatant lack of democracy.
It’s absolutely incredible. The awkward silence is so long, that you could genuinely believe that the video had frozen for a while. There’s no moral justification whatsoever for the West’s undying defence of Saudi Arabia, while at the same time, they condemn countries like Syria and Iran for their alleged lack of democracy and human rights. The fact is, they don’t give a damn about either of these things. They’re just an excuse that they use to cover for their real motivations, whenever they want to launch a war or regime change against a targeted country.
“You will agree with me that the protection of our country, of the British people, is the most important job of any government,” he wrote. “Certainly, more important than potential trade deals with questionable regimes, which appear to be the only explanation for your reticence.
No, they don’t agree with you at all. They don’t give a damn about protecting the British people.
“When will this report be finished and published? And what steps do you propose to take to address one of the root causes of violent extremism in the UK?”
“Never” and “none”.
Mr Brake accused Ms May of adopting a “short-sighted approach” to the funding of violent Islamist groups in the UK and urged that those who fund them should be called out publicly.
Accusing the Conservatives of being “worried about upsetting their dodgy friends in the Middle East”, he said party had “broken their pledge to investigate funding of violent Islamist groups in the UK”.
He added: “That short-sighted approach needs to change. It is critical that these extreme, hard line views are confronted head on, and that those who fund them are called out publicly.”
But…but… that might offend our great and trusted ally. We need to be more tolerant and accepting of them, when they finance the terrorists that kill our people.
It comes after Home Secretary Amber Rudd suggested during a leadership debate, that UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia are good for industry.
That’s all that matters to these people. Making money. Who cares about the long term effects of their short term greed?
The Government has recently approved £3.5bn worth of arms export licences to Saudi Arabia and a stream of British ministers have visited the kingdom to solicit trade, despite its ongoing involvement in the bombing campaign in Yemen.
Meanwhile they constantly condemn Assad and Russia for bombing ISIS strongholds
Government figures compiled by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) show the UK has licenced over £4.1 billion of arms to the Middle East since the last election in May 2015, and that two thirds of UK arms exports go to the Middle East.
And then some of those exported arms come right back into the UK and get used against UK citizens.
I’m feeling very cynical about democracy and electoral politics in general these days. The more I think about it, the more I come to believe that democracy just isn’t a viable system of government at all. I mean in all honesty, is anyone ever really happy with what they get? Just take our situation here in Ireland for example. Is anybody, even the people who voted for Fine Gael or Fianna Fail actually happy with the current government? How about the previous Fine Gael/Labour coalition? Was anyone pleased with that government? Or the Fianna Fail led one before that, etc.? Honestly, I can’t think of anyone who feels that any recent democratically elected Irish government actually represents the interests of the Irish people. But yet, we keep voting every single election, expecting things to be different next time, and we keep getting let down.
This conclusion is reflected when I look elsewhere. Take Britain for example. The yes side in the Brexit campaign won by a very slim majority. The 48% who voted against it are furious and have been restless in their attempts to get the result overturned in their favour. The political establishment is almost entirely anti-Brexit in its leanings and seems to be on the side of the losing minority, rather than the winning majority. No matter what happens, the end result is going to leave roughly half the country feeling screwed over. Either the large minority who only just barely lost, will resent being removed from the EU, or somehow by hook or by crook, the political establishment will find a way to overturn it eventually, thus screwing over the small majority who won.
In America, I look at the situation between Trump and Hillary. We had one candidate who was in favour of mass immigration, destructive freed trade deals, escalating conflicts around the world, etc., and then we had one candidate who opposed this. The candidate who opposed this won by the rules of their electoral system, but lost the popular vote, therefore undermining his legitimacy right away. To make matters worse, after a few good months were he seemed to be sticking to his promises, he suddenly, roughly a little over a month ago has started doing a U-Turn. No sign of the Mexican border wall. No desire anymore to pull out of the destructive NAFTA agreement. Attacking Syria and therefore making their relationship with Russia worse, after having promised to leave Syria alone and work on improving their relationship with Russia.
Smug, anti-Trump types will sneer at Trump voters for being “stupid enough to vote for him”. But realistically, what else could they do? Trump was saying he would stop illegal immigration and immigration from incompatible cultures, stop getting into pointless wars, move away from free trade agreements etc. Hillary said the exact opposite. If people wanted to see these policies implemented then obviously they’re going to vote for the person who said that they’ll do them, not the one who said they won’t. Sneering at disillusioned Trump voters for doing a U-Turn is basically victim-blaming. They had no way of knowing that he would betray them, but they did know for certain that Hillary would implement policies they didn’t want (well unless she too was to do a U-Turn, but that of course would have necessitated a betrayal of HER voters), so unless his supporters had psychic powers of some kind, and could see the future, they aren’t to blame. The democratic system, which allows people to lie their way into power with fake promises, and then doesn’t hold them to account when they break these promises is to blame.
However, it is France specifically that I want to draw my attention to. Yesterday, they had their presidential election. For the past few years they’ve been led by Francois Hollande, a “leader” so pathetic that by the end of his run, he literally only had a 4% approval rate. During his presidency, they’ve had terrorist attacks occur every few months (and that’s not even counting the many attempted ones that were successfully prevented before-hand), and they’ve had near constant riots in Paris, orchestrated primarily by people of Middle Eastern and African descent.
So you would think the French would be pretty angry about what has been happening, and indeed they sure seem to be. You would also think that after the failures of both Sarkozy and Hollande, that they would want someone different from the usual political establishment. In the end, they were left with two possible candidates to choose from. They could go with either Marine Le Pen, the candidate who seemed to want to put an end to the these problems, by giving the French people a referendum on EU membership, and putting an end to mass immigration (which of course, makes her a racist). Or they could go with Emmanuel Macron… a man who worked as an investment banker for a Rothschild bank no less (even his Wikipedia page openly mentions this), a man who seems to have a vast history of corruption, a man who supports the Islamisation of Europe, a man who has an offshore bank account to facilitate tax evasion, and a man who said this…
… about his own country. Just on the surface, the idea of saying that there is no such thing as French culture, sounds laughable, because we all have a natural vision of what symbolises France and “French” in our minds. However, it’s a lot more sinister than it sounds. As I’ve mentioned before, under the UN’s own definition, what is happening in Europe right now, fits the criteria of genocide.
By making the claim that French culture doesn’t even exist, then technically speaking there is no French culture to protect and preserve. How can he be accused of destroying French culture and by extension, the French people, if there is no such thing? This is essentially how a genocide begins. The first step is to dehumanise the target. In the case of a concept like culture, the first step is to deny it even exists. Then when that is done, you undermine and eliminate it. It’s no big deal of course, because you’re just undermining and eliminating something that doesn’t even exist.
I was hoping that the French people would be able to see what’s going on and vote for Le Pen. Just to be clear, I doubt Le Pen would have actually done anything that she promised. This is democracy after all. Most likely, if she had gotten into power, she would have ended up going back on her promises, just like Trump did. However, having her in power would have served two purposes. One, it would serve as a symbol that the people are fed up with globalisation and the disastrous consequences of multiculturalism, which could have energised even more people to stand up against it. Two, when she inevitably did a U-Turn, it would have served as yet another example of what a sham democracy really is, and brought us closer to having people wake up to the fact that it doesn’t really exist. By not voting for Le Pen, they’ve basically said that they’re ok with constant terrorism (which Macron admits will be a part of their daily lives for years to come), and when he does inevitably fuck up, there will still be people buying into the idea that electoral politics could have still solved the problems facing us, “if only we had voted for Le Pen when we had the chance”.
The fact is, democracy is ridiculous. Nobody seems to get what they really want. I can’t think of any examples of a democratic society in which a large majority of the people actually approve of their leader, beyond the short time after the initial victory, because they always let the people down eventually. Even a leader who was supposedly very popular like Obama, had approval rates that tended to fluctuate within the 40s and 50s percent range for most of his time in office. As I already mentioned, Francois Hollande had a 4% approval rating in the end. Justin Trudeau’s party in Canada are currently on around a 36% approval rate. Angela Merkel is still somehow the most popular leader in Germany, but even she has seen her approval decline to just 43%, which of course means that 57% don’t approve of her.
Then on the other hand I look at the leaders that the west demonises, the so called “dictators” and “undemocratic” leaders. Vladimir Putin has an approval rate of about 86%, and this is even after Russia has had its economy devastated by Western sanctions. The Russian people don’t care about the economic hardship they’re experiencing. If anything, because they know the west are responsible, it just causes them to support him even more. Assad, a man who the West claim is a brutal dictator who kills his own citizens for no reason, won a contested election in 2014, with 88.7% of the vote, and there is no indication that his popularity is declining. Duterte in the Philippines, a man who has essentially made murder legal (as long as you claim that the person you killed was a drug dealer or addict), enjoys an approval rating of 83%, down from the 91% he once enjoyed, but still far higher than any Western leader.
So when you really think about that, how insane does it all sound? Here in the West, where we have democracy and electoral politics, we don’t approve of our leaders. Meanwhile, in countries that the West condemns for their alleged lack of democracy, the leaders enjoy far more popularity than any Western leader that you can think of. The difference of course is that in these countries, the leaders actually represent the will of their people. In the west, where we’re supposedly free to choose the leaders that we want to represent us, they don’t represent us at all. Having our will represented is what we really want.
So if that’s the case, then what is the point of democracy? Yes, in theory I like the idea of being able to choose who will lead my country, but if they don’t implement policies that I support, then in practice, it’s useless anyway. We may as well just have a dictator in power. On the other hand, if we were to be represented by a strong decisive leader, who does implement the will of the people, then it really wouldn’t matter if I chose him or not. All that would matter to me is that he’s implementing policies that I approve of.
And that’s the point I want to end on. Does democracy really matter? If the choice is between an elected leader who doesn’t implement the policies that I want, and an unelected leader who does implement them, then the better choice seems obvious to me.