Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

The end is not nigh

Thursday, April 21st, 2011

But it is in sight.

There is a lot of ruin in a nation, but we have had a lot of ruin.

The US government lacks cohesion, and is insolvent. Lack of cohesion means that in a crisis it is apt to disappear, dissolve into its parts, with each part seeking its own interest. Insolvency means a crisis is looming.

I would expect the Euro to collapse before the US dollar, and the Euro is not going to collapse all that soon, and I would expect Europe to collapse politically before the US government collapses politically, and European political collapse is still far off. I predict interesting times in the 2020s.

A lot of people have made the metaphor that the Democrats have been driving the bus towards the cliff at one hundred miles per hour, and the Republicans propose to slow down to ninety eight miles per hour, but are willing to compromise for ninety nine miles per hour. What are they thinking?

Noble prize winning economist Krugman explains what he is thinking, which is pretty much what the Office of Management and Budget explains it is thinking, so I suppose this is what they are all thinking: The government is going to save pots of and pots of money by economizing on various things, especially health care.

How, you may ask, is it going to economize on health care?

Among the many measures the government is deploying to save pots and pots of money on health care, is that the government is forming two large new bureaucracies with the job of telling hospitals, doctors, and patients, how to save money on health care.

Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. Like a poker player in the grip of tilt, our ruling elite plan to solve their problems by doubling down on what got them into trouble.

Theocracy

Friday, April 8th, 2011

All Most theocratic religions are officially anti theocratic, in the sense that supposedly people believe in the official religion because it is simply the truth, not because of state sponsorship, and if anyone doubts the truth, they are supposedly seeking the power that rightly belongs to those who preach what is simply the truth, so it is those horrid heretics that are the theocrats.  Thus the well paid wise progressive from Harvard sees a church in a wooden shack in the countryside, and cries in horror and outrage “Theocracy!”.  Islam, the most theocratic of them all, is openly theocratic in the sense that they claim that God literally rules them, which however means that they have to pretend their doctrine is unchanging.The Roman Catholic Church on the other hand, was after 1277 almost as furtive about theocracy as Harvard.  Official lists of forbidden thoughts, such as the condemnations of 1277, were officially unofficial.  The Spanish inquisition was operated by kings, and the Church, like Harvard, merely advised kings on the truth.

And if the truth requires frequent rewrites of history and the forceful suppression of dangerously inconvenient facts, such is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable response to the irrationally foolish heretics.  We have to help people perceive the truth by lying to them, as for example “hide the decline”.  That is the way you do science.  You delete the data you know to be misleading, and replace it with data that shows  what you know to be the truth because it is the official consensus.  All properly scientific scientists do that, and if they don’t they deserve to lose their jobs.  We know all scientists are reliable, because they are continually peer reviewed to make sure they stick to the consensus of their peers – and if their data fails to correspond to observation, who cares. It is more important that it correspond to the real truth than mere observation.

So how do you tell a theocratic religion if it fails to post a big label saying “Theocracy”?

Theocratic religions are always stronger the closer people are to the center of power, because they originate and are upheld by the center.  That is how you tell a theocratic religion.  That is what a theocratic religion is.

Thus:

  • Washington is more progressive than flyover country, and Cairo more Islamic than the Egyptian delta
  • The American rich are more progressive than the American poor, and the Egyptian rich more Islamic than the Egyptian poor.
  • Ivy League educated Americans are more progressive than Cow University educated Americans, and similarly in Egypt, those with higher status Egyptian educations are more Islamic.

And that is how you can spot a theocracy.

A theocracy that requires improbable beliefs about the next world can nonetheless recruit people who are sane, in that they can recruit people who have the required beliefs about the next world, but base their beliefs about this world on reality testing.   The Jesuits were good at that. But progressivism is a religion, or substitute for religion, which requires beliefs about this world – thus tends to recruit people who are crazy and/or stupid.  And as the required purity of belief becomes ever more and more extreme, the required real or feigned insanity becomes crazier and crazier, as magnificently illustrated by the events surrounding Major Hasan.

The Major Hasan incident illustrates the required craziness, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman illustrates the required stupidity.

The craziness is illustrated by the fact that when Major Hasan gave a power point presentation on why he was going to murder his audience, they all listened politely and respectfully, is illustrated by the fact that the State Department is installing the guys who raped and sexually mutilated Lara Logan into power in Egypt, is illustrated by the fact that Imam Rauf who is erecting a victory mosque at ground zero on the body parts of his enemies is hailed as a moderate and gets government funding.

If anyone had said of Major Hasan “Hey, this guy is saying he is going to kill us!  Let us lock him up right now and throw away the key”, that would have been raaaciist.  They would have been discriminating.

Our policy of exporting democracy to Muslims is as transparently demented as our policy of affirmative actioning Hasan to Major.  It is as crazy to allow Muslims to vote anywhere in the world as it was to affirmative action Hasan to Major instead of locking him up.

US policy is to export democracy at gunpoint in the expectation that it will turn Muslims into progressives – but quite obviously democracy is having the opposite effect.  Democracy turns them into Islamists – and anyone who could not have foreseen it was going to turn them into Islamists was batshit crazy, willfully blind to the glaringly obvious.

An individual Muslim ruler who decides for war, or, more commonly, actions likely to provoke war, gets a warm glow of religious piety by so doing, but faces the consequences of his actions, because his decision makes a large difference to the likelihood of bombs falling through his roof.  Since most Muslims are not in fact very pious, he, instead of piously deciding for war, swigs down a shot of whiskey, snacks on some pork, then impiously decides for peace and adopts measures to encourage tourism and western investment – for example as the United Arab Emirates does.

A Muslim voter who votes for trouble gets as much of a warm glow of piety as a ruler who decides for war, but since one vote makes no difference, does not increase the chances of bombs landing on his head.  So just as western voters piously vote for redistribution of wealth and preservation of the environment regardless of the consequences to themselves, Muslims piously vote for hatred, murder and war regardless of the consequences of for themselves.

The most peaceable and prosperous Muslim states are long established monarchies with secure hereditary rulers, such as Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.  Muslim party states are considerably less peaceful.  The more power is distributed, the more a Muslim state will act Islamic – the more it will make war upon us infidels.

Losing the peace to Islam

Thursday, March 10th, 2011

The liberal theory is that they are going to deal with Islam by getting them to convert from Islam to liberalism.

This has worked against Christianity.  Even the Christian right has converted wholesale away from Christianity to progressivism – they continue to oppose divorce, gay marriage, and abortion, but haveconceded on patriarchy and endorsed a system of family law that legally treats men and women as identical and interchangeable, which means that in practice it treats fathers as expendable, dangerous, and harmful.  Having accepted the legal interchangeability of men and women they have no principled grounds to oppose gay marriage and so forth.  If there are no differences between men and women, if equal in the sense of interchangeable, how can one oppose interchanging them?  If men cannot be made carry children, how can you make women carry them?  And so on and so forth.  Having conceded on patriarchy and unequal marriage, having abandoned biological reality, all else follows, the entire liberal program follows.

So, if it has worked against Christianity, why not Islam?

Liberalism wins against Christianity not by appeal, for it is demonstrably unappealing. Observe that  the more liberal the church, the emptier the pews.  Nor does it succeed by reason, for Christianity has religious beliefs about the next world, which can never be disproven by reason, while liberalism has religious beliefs about this world, which beliefs are quite demonstrably false.  Liberalism wins against Christianity because liberalism is a theocratic religion, and uses the power of the state to inculcate Christian children in liberalism, and to pressure churches to preach liberalism instead of Christianity.  If a Christian church preaches illiberal Christianity, the state will disfavor its leading adherents in a variety of unpleasant ways, up to and including spurious sex abuse charges, state abduction of wives and children, Waco massacre, and so on and so forth, while if the preacher preaches liberal Christianity, he quietly gets all manner of favors,  faith based state initiatives and so on and so forth, so if a preacher wants to get ahead, he gets with the liberal program.

This does not work against Islam, for Islam is also a theocratic religion, and forcibly resists this.  Teach Muslim children liberalism, and someone might cut your throat.  Pressure the mosque, and they will pressure right back.  Howard, the Australian prime minister, attempted a program of state sponsored “moderate Islam”, and as long as his hand was on it, any Muslim preacher that wanted the benefits of state sponsorship sounded at least a little bit “moderate” – but as soon as Howard was removed from power the strings that Howard had attached were swiftly snipped, leaving only state sponsorship of violently illiberal Islam.

So in the US Christians kids are forbidden to participate in collective prayer in school while Muslim kids are compelled to participate in collective prayer in school.  As a result of this and many similar measures throughout the west, Muslim mosque attendance is high and rising, Christian Church attendance is low and falling.

In the West we see many converts to Islam, few converts to Christianity. We particularly see unmarried women in their most fertile years converting to Islam.

One article claimed total Christian converts to Islam in Britain 100,000, (mostly women), with 5,200 converted in the most recent year

Another article claimed total Muslim converts to Christianity in Britain was 3000 – a ratio of thirty to one total converts in favor of Islam.

Sample lists of Muslims in the west converting to Christianity are overwhelmingly male – typically about one woman for every three males, while western converts to Islam are mainly women, mainly women.

Since the converts in one direction are mainly men, and converts in the other direction mainly women, this indicates the ratio in Britain is  near a hundred female converts to Islam, for every female convert from Islam to Christianity.

The liberal program of gender abolition does not seem to appeal to its supposed beneficiaries.  It is often said that in all of history there has never been gay marriage, but the reason that in all of history there has never been gay marriage, is that in all of history, there has never been a society in which marriage and family law treated husbands and wives alike as “spouses”.  The one is as unnatural as the other.  Perhaps gender abolition will work in the future when biotechnology has progressed to the point that children are decanted, rather than born, but it is not working today.

The decline of civilization reflected in fantasy novels

Friday, February 25th, 2011

Black gate observes the replacement of heroes by anti heroes, and the replacement of morality by anti morality:

Thus we can be confident that the murderous, blaspheming anti-hero who rapes and tortures children will never utter a racist thought, be disgusted by homosexuality, or express skepticism about any religious stand-in for Judaism or Islam.

Abercrombie and others cannot rightly be accused of amorality nor can they correctly be portrayed as bold skewerers of sacred cows. They’re simply skewering someone else’s cows while respecting their own.

The commenters reactions reveal just how sacred these cows are.  One of the commenters replies:  “at that point you stood exposed”.  Exposed!   Exposed!  Oh the horror, the horror!

Another of the commenters pretends to sophistication, rather than advocacy of a different morality:

I don’t see this as any kind of moral statement. Modern audiences are just more interested in complex characters, and that’s reflected in their book choices.

It seems that torturing children makes a hero complex, but prejudging people according to their race or species, as Tolkien’s characters were apt to do, does not.

No friends to the right

Thursday, February 17th, 2011

No enemies to the left, no friends to the right

Left wing journalist Nir Rosen ridicules Lara Logan’s rape.  Seems that because Nir Rosen is even further left than she is, the stupid slut deserved to get raped.

“Lara Logan had to outdo Anderson. Where was her buddy McCrystal.”

That she is supposedly a buddy of the insufficiently left wing McCrystal is a suggestion that she is insufficiently left wing.

Democracy in action

Thursday, February 17th, 2011

Lara Logan, CBS chief foreign correspondent

Lara Logan

Lara Logan, about to be gang raped

was beaten and gang raped by a mob of 200 enthusiastic pro democracy protestors chanting “Jew, Jew”

There is an effort to blame Mubarak for this, but if the goons of a US ally had done this, if the goons of a man who accepted peace with the west had done this, the mainstream media would be covering this with headlines the size of tombstones, instead of piously sweeping it under the carpet.

No one is going to be punished for this, and the good progressives really do not want anyone to be punished, since whites and Americans are always in the wrong, and the enemies of civilization always in the right.  I doubt that even Lara Logan wants anyone punished for this, for she is surely a true believing progressive.  Only a true believing progressive would have wandered into a mob of savages without adequate backup, preferably backup from such evil white capitalist imperialists as the men of Blackwater or Executive Outcomes.

This incident reminds me of that Yellowstone park incident where a woman who had seen too many Disney movies poured honey on the hands of her little girl, and asked the girl to feed the bear.  The bear, of course, ate the girl, starting with her hands.

Like the commenters at Atlas shrugged, I can’t wait to hear her report after her recovery calling for understanding of her rapists and how it’s all Bush’s fault.

The origins of multicultural rule

Sunday, February 13th, 2011

Hbd Chick has been discussing the origins of multicultural rule.

I have been reading old books.  The ideology that races, ethnicities, and genders, are the same in mean and distribution, and if they are not it is because of oppression and someone must be punished, is several hundred years old.  It first exercised sufficient power to intimidate its enemies and reward its friends in Britain in 1890, as illustrated by the pressure applied to James Anthony Froude, and by the elevation to the heights of the none too bright John Jacob Thomas.

Affirmative action for women had the whip hand in Europe in 1910 – consider for example Marie Curie getting not one but two Nobel prizes for work that was entirely routine when men did it.  Can you remember anyone who discovered any of the other hundred odd elements?  You cannot, because all the other elements were discovered by men.  She got Nobel prizes not for doing exceptional science, but for doing science that was exceptional for a woman, just as when people praise Obama’s speaking skills, which are far inferior to Sarah Palin’s, they mean he speaks well for a black man.

As early as 1904, academics are tiptoeing around the fact that the great Zimbabwe in Africa was built by Hebrews, and that as these Hebrew settlers interbred with local blacks, their workmanship deteriorated.  (The tribe that claim to have built it recall that they are Hebrew descended, recall their journey from the middle east, have a religion that much resembles Judaism, look significantly less black than their neighbors, and were, in the twenty first century, gene tested revealing substantial Hebrew blood)  The fact that the builders were of a visibly different race to their neighbors and claimed to have immigrated from the middle east is only mentioned by the indelicate, even in 1906.  It was not something a proper academic would mention, since it might suggest that black people just cannot build or maintain cities.

From about 1880 to 1940, the ideology is clearly and overwhelmingly Christian, in particular Protestant Christian socialist, though these Christians were somewhat embarrassed by the bible, due to its reactionary views on family, marriage, women, divorce, adultery, homosexuality, and so forth, and were in the process of discarding it.

From 1920 to 1940, we see the center of power in this ideology, the holy church of multiculturalism and environment, shifting from Europe to the US.  After World War II, the US was wholly dominant, and Harvard the high Cathedral of the religion.  Since the holy doctrine must be taught in government schools, what little Christianity remained in the doctrine was ruthlessly suppressed, in order to superficially appear to comply with the first amendment, though arguably the doctrine was being taught in government schools with a more explicitly Christian tinge before the war.  Jews only show up in the multicultural ruling elite after the remnants of Christianity are purged from the doctrine – fifty or sixty years after it first exercised theocratic power.

Anti semitism

Friday, January 7th, 2011

As Moldbug tells us:

Anti semitism is the faulty, paranoid, and obsessive belief that Jewish elites are significantly different from gentile elites.

Jews, as Jews, simply were not an are not influential in the development of the theocracy that ruled us. Jews really do not matter so much, so any belief system that causes one to focus on Jews sends one crazy, detaches one from reality.  If we look at the elite and bad conduct by the elite, and start asking:
“Who is a JOO? Look I see a JOO!  See the JOO!” then we are apt to attribute to the elite an ethnic solidarity that it conspicuously lacks. The elite is disproportionately Jewish, and hates Jews, entirely white, and hates whites, mostly anglophone, and hates anglophones, mostly American, and hates Americans and America.

Before any Jew was allowed to get anywhere near the reins of power, he had to convert to progressivism, or plausibly pretend to. Lots of them did so, as the progressive theocrats intended, which was highly beneficial for those Jews that converted and ascended, but a disaster for Judaism, and none too good for the Jewish people as a people.

Progressivism is an American branch of left protestantism, which sought theocratic power, in particular wanted all educational institutions to inculcate all children, especially Jewish and Catholic children, in their religion. Since the American constitution forbade this, they over time, ditched Christ, ditched redemption, and in large part ditched God. This started in 1900 or so and was largely completed by the time they were running reeducation, denazification and anti-colonialism.. They retained, however, a great pile of Christian and specifically protestant beliefs that are incompatible with Judaism as a religion, a culture, and a society. If Jews were influential as Jews, progressivism would be post Jewish, rather than post Christian.  But progressivism is, in practice, a post Christian heresy from Christianity.

For an example of the post christian character of progressivism, consider the ludicrous progressive belief that all people are equal in ability and virtue and so forth, which is what remains of the Christian belief that all people are equal in the sight of God, after God and Christ have been removed from the belief system.

The proposition that men and women are literally equal, that races are equal, leading to the conclusion that they are interchangeable, that women can be soldiers and firemen, men can marry other men, can only be understood as proposition about souls, rather than bodies, and when this doctrine is doubted, the reaction is religious rather than empirical. Understood as a species of Christian belief, it makes sense, because the Christians believe that the most important part of the self is immaterial. If it’s immaterial, then material differences have nothing to do with it. So Christians are free to believe pretty much anything they want about this most important part of the self, unconstrained by material evidence of any sort. They are free to believe that deep inside everyone, there is a core, an essence, that is not the slightest diminished by bodily infirmity etc. etc. I.e., the soul. The progressives jettison God, replacing God with, presumably, Nature. So “equality before God” becomes “equality before Nature”. That is, natural equality (of some unspecified sort). And this could be how the progressives manage to believe in some unspecified “natural” (biological or whatever) equality even though no evidence backs them up. Their belief is derived, not from evidence, but from the Christian heritage of progressivism. Their belief looks superficially like a scientific hypothesis because all the terms in it could be interpreted as referring to natural things, but it doesn’t really have any empirical content, because “equality”, while it could refer to something measurable, does not actually refer to anything measurable. Any attempt to measure something to test the claim of “equality” is attacked by progressives.

Progressives are using naturalistic-sounding words to talk about equality, but they are behaving as though it didn’t make any sense to try to measure it, which is how Christians would behave with respect to attempts to rigorously test equality before God. The Christian reaction would range from skepticism that it could be done, to the sense that it doesn’t even make sense to try, and finally to the certainty that it is heresy to even suggest such a thing and the person suggesting it is evil and possibly a sorcerer and should be burnt at the stake – and if you express doubt about natural equality, the progressive reaction you will get is not an appeal to empirical evidence, but condemnation and threats.

Progressivism is today influential world wide, and everywhere it is primarily American. For example “Gay pride” was applied throughout Europe often before it was applied in America, but with made in America propaganda, directly translated and retain American idioms, and often American neologisms, such as “Gay” as the new euphemism for homosexual; the hand of the master was visible; the muppet’s lips were moving, but the voice was not that of a local. Similarly American schoolchildren are taught about America, and are primarily taught that America is the most evil nation in the world, and German schoolchildren are also taught about America, and are primarily taught that America is the most evil nation in the world.

But, I hear you ask, if the Cathedral, the progressive ruling elite, is primarily American, rather than Jewish, why is it so maniacally anti American? Why you, ask, do they hate people like you and me. Surely that they hate Americans shows they are not Americans, do not think of themselves as Americans, therefore must be Jews?

Alas, self hatred is depressingly common, and progressives hate themselves, and therefore hate everyone like themselves, and therefore they hate you, and hate me, for reasons I will now explain:

Central to Christianity is sin and redemption. Christians are held to a standard so high that they cannot possibly attain it, and even if they attained it, they are condemned by original sin; we are all sinners and should be ashamed and guilty. But the preacher offers us a way out. Accept Christ as Lord, Christ will forgive you, Christ loves you, Christ will shoulder the load. Yes, you are a sinner, but Jesus loves you. And thus, central to progressivism is sin. Progressives are held to a standard so high that we cannot possibly attain it, and even if we attained it, we are condemned by original sin in that we are beneficiaries of colonialism slavery racism and blah blah blah. But the sensitivity trainer cannot offer us a way out, since God is dead and Jesus never existed. And so progressives are required to hate themselves. And they do.

The Progressives, the Left, the Cathedral, does not hate non Jewish whites because it is disproportionately Jewish; it hates all whites because it is white and hates Jews disproportionately because it is disproportionately Jewish.  It hates America and Americans because it is primarily American.

The most honest political ad of all time illustrates the perils of the politically correct only listening to each other. When they speak, their purpose is not truth, but power – and since they understand power as meaning the capacity to harm, everything they say is a lie intended to harm the hearer – and since they listen respectfully, indeed worshipfully, to each other …

The ruling elite is theocratic, hence the nickname “the Cathedral”. Their religion is simultaneously altruistically self hating, as illustrated by environmentalism and the fact that the disproportionately Jewish elite hates Israel and Jews, yet contradictorily, at the same time nihilistic and cynical, with the Alinksyite approach that anything goes in the pursuit of power, a contradiction resolved in their own minds since they are pursuing total, limitless, and absolute power, not on their own behalf, but on behalf of the oppressed and downtrodden – they are doing it for the proletariat, for the colonized. And if the proletariat and
the colonized are so rude as to talk back to their betters, well then, they are doing it for the trees.

The Cathedral will destroy everything, starting with itself, just as the most honest political ad of all time ended with the murder of the narrator. Its self hatred renders it powerless against more self confident theocracies, such as Islam, and its self destructiveness renders it incapable of holding power for very long even absent external enemies.

If the Jews were running things, we would have decent airport security like they have in Israel, instead of naked body scan and genital gropedown.   If the Jews were running things, the CIA would operate more like Mossad and less like the Keystone Cops.

The antiprofiling fetish is a left superstition and ritual, derived from progressivism’s Christian roots,  not a Jewish superstition and ritual – so it is obvious who is in charge.

Similarly, Israel had no banking crisis, despite the fact that their banks are full of Jews, who are doubtless as crooked as bankers elsewhere:  The reason there is no banking crisis in Israel is because banks in Israel did not make political loans to voter blocks and special interest groups notorious for not paying their debts; such loans being a progressive, rather than Jewish, superstition. And when the US government put the heat on banks around the world to buy mortgage backed securities, Israel “refused to support the world banking system”.  Since when did we have a world banking system? One worldism is a progressive superstition centered on the UN, and the UN hates Jews.

The left is lily white (as we saw at the “rally to restore sanity”) and hates whites.  The left is dominated and largely controlled by America and anglophones (as we saw with the export of the “gay pride” program to the non English speaking world) and hates anglophones and hates Americans most among anglophones.  The left is disproportionately Jewish, and hates Jews.

We are not ruled by Jews.  We are ruled by people who hate themselves and hate us and hate Jews most of all.

Here is the Bank of Israel’s take on the Global financial crisis:  You will notice that while everyone else is lying about it, they are telling the truth:

What are the factors that led to the global crisis?

The main factor that initiated the crisis was the accumulation of mortgages in default in the US as a result of the reversal of the trend of US housing prices. This occurred against the background of easy mortgages over a period of several years during which mortgages were provided to homebuyers who did not have sufficient ability to repay them. The losses spread to large financial institutions in a number of countries through the globalized financial markets, which facilitated the creation and marketing of complex financial instruments world wide. These instruments had a variety of terms to deal with default that had not been in use in the past and some of the instruments were sold and guaranteed by large financial institutions. Large investment houses worldwide held the view that advances in the study of finance had enabled a better understanding of these products and the correct valuation of the products and their guarantees. In retrospect, the risk assessment of these products was extremely deficient. Thus, significant losses were incurred by these large financial institutions and their customers. As a result, uncertainty regarding the financial stability of these institutions spread at a surprisingly quick rate and activity in the markets for more basic financial products-in which these same investment houses are active-was also affected.

How has the crisis so far affected the Israeli financial system relative to its effect on the financial markets and institutions in other advanced economies?

One of the main causes of the global financial crisis was the provision of mortgages, primarily though not exclusively in the US, to borrowers with insufficient ability to repay them. As a result, housing prices rose sharply in these countries, as did the prices of financial assets. When the financial institutions began to realize that they had provided mortgages to homebuyers with insufficient ability to repay them and these individuals were forced to sell their homes, a downward trend began in the prices of houses that served as the collateral for not only sub-prime mortgages, but higher quality mortgages as well. The drop in the value of other assets also eroded the collateral for loans that were made by the financial institutions in these countries. These developments, together with the collapse of the markets for mortgage-backed securities, had a multiplier effect that among other things led to the collapse of several financial institutions in the US, the UK and Europe. The large-scale provision of such mortgages in these countries to individuals with insufficient means to repay them was not,  however, characteristic of the Israeli financial system

You will observe that members of the Israeli elite can and do speak close to the the truth about the crisis, (the problem was mortgages to deadbeats) while members of the American elite, including their European muppets, cannot and do not. (Supposedly the problem was “excessive leverage”.)  Thus the financial crisis was brought to you by progressivism, not by the Jews, despite the  disproportionate presence of Jews in finance and financial regulation.

The evil empire

Monday, January 3rd, 2011

Wikileaks Cable 10Paris58 reveals the extent of US rule over Europe.  If Europe is further left than the US, broker than the US, and more $@$%# than the US, this primarily that the American ruling elite has a freer hand in ruling Europe than in ruling the US, due to the US constitution, and the American tradition of liberty.

In Cable 10Paris58, the writer announces that France is insufficiently left wing, therefore an American program of intervention in French internal affairs is required to move France further left.

“Gay Pride” is another illustration of the same process.  When the US implemented “Gay Pride” in the US, it implemented “Gay Pride” world wide.  And what is a gay pride parade called in Spanish?  el día del Orgullo Gay

The use of the American neologism “Gay” reveals who is calling the shots, who planned and organized this event.

Let us reflect on Aristide’s rule in Haiti:

The US intervened in Haiti to install Aristide at gunpoint and it also intervened in Haitian society and culture to convince Haitians that this was a good thing, was benevolent and progressive.

The US demanded an election. It then demanded an election rigged in Aristide’s favor. He won, was overthrown. US demanded with threat of violence that he be reinstated. He was reinstated again, overthrown again. US invaded, installed him on the presidential throne with the guns of US marines, and, just to make sure Aristide did not get up to any mischief, surrounded him with an all white praetorian guard.

You will probably read all over the internet and the mainstream media that the numerous occasions in which Aristide was removed from power were evil American plots by evil America to deprive Aristide of his immensely popular and well deserved power.  Each of the supposedly anti American sources saying that stuff is a US state department muppet – someone from the state department has his arm up the speaker’s @$$ and his fingers are moving the speaker’s lips – pretty much in the way the praetorian guard were moving Aristide’s lips.

They are indeed anti American – because the US state department and the US ruling elite is anti American.

Just look at the races of the actors.  The people who installed Aristide were white Americans.  The people who guarded him were white people of undisclosed nationality.   (Not all that undisclosed – when everything fell apart, Aristide’s praetorians were rescued from black Haitians by the US marines)  The people Aristide fled were black Haitians.

It is not the Joos, it is Harvard and the State Department, not a sinister Jooish plot, it is a sinister Harvard plot.  It is a government conspiracy to impose more government on those who can least resist it – the French being less able to resist than Americans, and the Haitians being less able to resist than the French.

The 1994 intervention in Haiti is not in itself all that important, Haiti being just a small pimple, but it is important in what it reveals – like Cable 10Paris58 it reveals the true face of US imperialism.

The future is Muslim, Mormon, and Catholic

Saturday, December 25th, 2010

Anglican Christmas church service, ten attend, eight with one foot in the grave.  Sermon is about the other foot dropping.

Catholic Christmas church service, approximately one hundred attend, most of them young.  Sermon is about Christmas being a time for children.

Some months ago I checked the graveyards.  To judge by the absence of angels, graveyards one hundred  percent protestant.