Sunday, February 19, 2017


"Communists" are really only SLAVERS.
They know they can't (or won't) control their own urges to take your stuff while pretending to be your victim, so they pretend to justify their initial attacks and thefts by presuming you would have done it to them too, if you could have.
As slanderously paranoid masochists, they will always try to pretend to be able to control their own fears, BY causing those very same, worst-case scenario problems (as in antagonizing and attacking their innocent victims first) which cause the pains they fear the most! Hence their self-justifying endless accusations are victim-blaming "projection."
It's a choice to use the lying excuse that "I didn't do it! Only my brain did it!" to justify one's criminal actions.
And it often works out for them, too. Because being always adversarial and on the offensive, their perpetual slanders serve to put their victims always on the defensive, replying and responding to their crimes long after the fact. In trying to defend them selves, their victims are put in a position of explaining and justifying being victims, and as such find them selves in a besieged, onus-reversed state of always being presumed guilty until never proven innocent, always trying to prove a negative: "Prove your actions DIDN'T offend me and hurt my precious feelings, you haters!"
And inducing such a condition of perpetual extortion is to create a state of perpetual slavery in one's victims. Such nasty people tend to "fail upwards" as their criminally-negligent motto of course is "There's No Money In Solutions - so Please, Give Generously, AGAIN!" Their victim credentials make them into much-needed expert authorities who of course are entitled to have rights without responsibilities in all venues: business to government to academia to media.
That's what you get when you endorse idolatrous group or gang 'rights' over all real live human individual citizens' rights - while taking away said citizens' rights to own and defend property, including their own lives and those of their families. Even "socialism" is really only gangster extortion leading to slavery. Despite it's fluffy label, there's nothing "sociable" about slavery at all, ever!
These group-might-makes-right gangsters are slavers, because that's what you get from perpetual extortion. Criminal takers force makers to work to produce for them for free - the very definition of slavery. And like all criminals, they want to "progress" to having ever-more rights, and ever-less responsibility and to do so by offloading their own responsibility onto their victims, by taking away their victims' rights to self-defense. And the best way for any criminals to pre-emptively remove their victims' rightful ability to defend them selves, is to convince them in advance that there are no real "crimes" nor "criminals" at all, ever, because we're all really ever only helpless victims anyway! Since the definition of criminal depends on free-will choice or intent, criminals must tell lies all the time, making up excuses for their crimes and why they are more entitled to your stuff than you are. Thus their endless victimology "narratives" where they proudly claim to be non-compus-mentis in that "Since life is too complex for anyone to ever really be able to understand cause-and-effect, all so-called "facts" are really ever only opinions! And therefore my entirely subjective, fact-free opinions are the "diversely opposite equals" to your silly objective facts! Whee!" And also, therefore, "since" we're all really ever only helpless victims - of mysterious magical and most importantly, predestined, predetermined "inevitable," forces beyond our control - like (Marx's "Historical Predeterminism") as in being merely helpless victims of "society" and mere products of our environments, and of course proudly helpless salves of allah - the only cause which doesn't exist is free-will choice, so the only real crime should be to accuse any "other victims" of being "criminals" simply because they got caught committing their "crimes" against you! In fact, suicidal masochism (aka perpetual "tolerance" of criminals and their crimes) should also be the highest moral virtue (for you, not for us) - CAPISCE?! So they chide and shame their victims to always try "TO GO ALONG" (with these criminal lies) ""TO GET ALONG" (with all the other lying criminals). Endorsing such Submission to extortion and slavery is a crime - it IS extortion.
Doesn't this "political correctness" look familiar? Kinda exactly like ... islam?


Further, from here:

Here are the 10 planks of communism:
  1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Private property rights are almost nonexistent today. You don’t own your property if it can be confiscated for non-payment of tribute to the king, or if a government agency  like the Environmental Protection Agency can arbitrarily tell you what you can and can’t do with it.)
  2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (Accomplished via the American tax system. Enforced via the Gestapo-like Internal Revenue Service.)
  3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Accomplished via the estate tax.)
  4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (Accomplished via rendition and drug laws and civil forfeiture laws allowing law enforcement to confiscate property if it is suspected of being used in the trade or manufacture of drugs — often without evidence.)
  5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Accomplished via the Federal Reserve, which is not Federal and doesn’t hold “reserves.”)
  6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. (Accomplished via the Federal Communications Commission and the regulated airline industry, Amtrak, public transportation and the regulated auto industry. Further attempts being made to seize more power through control of the Internet.)
  7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands and the improvement of the soil, generally in accordance with a common plan. (Accomplished through price controls on the utilities via their government-supported monopolies and subsidies for favored industries.)
  8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (Industrial armies accomplished through regulations favoring/subsidizing unions.)
  9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. (In progress via Agenda 21, “sustainable development” communities, etc.)
  10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (Accomplished via the public indoctrination system called public education under the control of the Federal government.)
These planks are supported by both major political parties.
Russian communism anyone? What a joke. Focus on American communism.

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Leftists Are SLAVERS!

Like most criminals, delinquent libertine "liberals" are SLAVERS. That's the end result when you expect to have rights (like, to other peoples' stuff) without any responsibility (like, to earn or otherwise pay for it!) especially by offloading one's own responsibilities onto one's victims, by taking away their self-defense rights.

Hypocrisy - the double-standards of do as I say, not as I do - is what all criminals, whether libertine "liberal" ones, or holy-mobster "muslims" are all about!

All criminals want to "progress" to having ever-more rights, and ever-less responsibilities all the time. They want a right to your stuff, without any responsibility to have to earn or otherwise pay for it.

And the best way for criminals to disarm their victims is to convince them that there are no real crimes nor criminals, but only helpless victims all the time.

Thus the only crime, they pretend, would be to accuse "another" helpless victim of being a "criminal," simply because they tried to commit a "crime" against you!

Perpetual victimology is perpetual slander, because it implies a permanent oppressor.

That way they can cast them selves as victims, and their victims as criminals.

Victimology is thus no more or less than perpetual extortion, aka SLAVERY.

By forcing their victims to produce without remuneration, criminals are slavers.

As masochists, libertine "liberal" criminals always try to control their own fears BY causing those very same, worst-case scenario problems (like, in antagonizing and attacking innocent others first) which cause the pains they fear the most.

So, what's the leftopaths' final solution, aim and end goal? SLAVERY. The enslavement of everyone not-them; i.e: of YOU.

Since they know they can't (or won't) trust them selves to control their own criminal urges, they 'know' they must PERMANENTLY CONTROL YOU! Their main slanderously paranoid point of view is "SINCE you COULD commit a crime, SO you WILL commit it, so they MUST stop you by ("pre-emptively, defensively") attacking you first! Seeing fears AS pains is just shrewd common sense realpolitik!

"Communism" endorses the largest gang over all individuals. It IS "globalization," where trade is so free and borders so open that governments have no control over them at all. In socialism (extortive gangster slavery) individuals have no rights to own or defend property or their own bodies.

(Sound familiar, Canadians who aren't allowed to own guns for self-defense?).

When you have no right to own property, you have no right to defend it (your own property or borders). It's why they insist there are no real crimes or criminals because there is no free-will choice and we're all really only ever helpless victims - of magical mysterious inevitable predestined and predetermined economic forces (which outright Marxists call "Historical Predeterminism") and as of course proud slaves of allah.

Since your enslavement is what they're after, it's plain why they feel the need to LIE about it to us all the time, why they feel compelled to always shame & chide us to always try to "GO ALONG" (with criminal lies) "TO GET ALONG" (with all the other lying criminals)!

So suicidal masochism (of course for only you to embrace, not them) is pimped out to you as the highest virtue, and accusing "other victims" of being "criminals" just because they got caught trying to commit their "crimes" against you is derided as the worst possible sin!

And since victimology is extortion (because enabling perpetual victimhood implies perpetual oppressors) leftards, despite being small-minded fear-focused weasels, tend to "fail upwards!"

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

RINO Warning!

From here:

The Silence of the Lambs Congress
Ann Coulter: Republicans who voted for refugee ban months ago now tsk-tsk Trump

Let’s compare what President Trump has accomplished since the inauguration (with that enormous crowd!) with what congressional Republicans have done.

In the past three weeks, Trump has: staffed the White House, sent a dozen Cabinet nominees to the Senate, browbeat Boeing into cutting its price on a government contract, harangued American CEOs into keeping their plants in the United States, imposed a terrorist travel ban, met with foreign leaders and nominated a Supreme Court justice, among many other things.

(And still our hero finds time to torment the media with his tweets!)

What have congressional Republicans been doing? Scrapbooking?

More than 90 percent of congressional Republicans kept their jobs after the 2016 election, so you can cross “staffing an entire branch of government” off the list. Only the Senate confirms nominees, which they’ve been doing at a snail’s pace, so they’ve got loads of free time – and the House has no excuse at all.

Where’s the Obamacare repeal? Where are the hearings featuring middle-class Americans with no health insurance because it was made illegal by Obamacare?

The House passed six Obamacare repeals when Obama was president, and there was no chance of them being signed into law. Back then, Republicans were full of vim and vigor! But the moment Trump became president, the repeals came to a screeching halt.

After the inauguration (gigantic!), House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put out a plan for repealing Obamacare … in 200 days. They actually gave their legislative agenda this inspiring title: “The Two Hundred Day Plan.”


What was in the last six Obamacare repeals? If we looked, would we find “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” carefully typed out 1 million times? Seriously, what does Paul Ryan’s day look like?

This is the Silence of the Lambs Congress. They’re utterly silent, emerging from the House gym or their three-hour lunches only to scream to the press about Trump.

To the delight of the media, these frightened little lambs are appalled by nearly everything Trump does. They’ve been especially throaty about Trump’s temporary travel ban from seven terrorist nations – as designated by the Obama administration (and by everybody else who hasn’t been in a deep freeze in a Finnish crevasse for the past decade).

Just like the six Obamacare repeals, a refugee ban was already written and passed by one house of Congress. Then suddenly: the Silence of the Lambs. McConnell and Ryan are hiding under their desks, as Trump is being attacked from every side.

Way, way back, 15 long months ago, congressional Republicans didn’t have a problem with a total ban on Syrian and Iraqi refugees. Not for a mere three months like Trump’s order – but permanently, unless the director of the FBI, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence personally certified that a particular refugee posed no danger to the U.S.

That bill passed the House with an overwhelming, veto-proof majority, including 47 Democrats.

Then it went to the Senate to die.

But when President Trump imposed a comparatively mild three-month ban on immigrants from Syria, Iraq and five other terrorist nations, the same Republicans who had voted for a limitless ban on refugees whiled away their days calling reporters to denounce Trump.

A little more than a year ago, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, bragged in a press release that he had introduced the House’s refugee ban, calling it a bill that would “protect Americans from ISIS.”

But when it came to Trump’s three-month pause, McCaul told the Post that Trump’s order “went too far.”

I guess that ISIS problem just sort of faded away. (Or maybe we should check with Mrs. McCaul, inasmuch as it’s her family money that makes Rep. McCaul one of the richest members of Congress.)

Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., who voted for the House’s permanent refugee ban, demanded that Trump immediately rescind his travel ban, babbling on about the “many, many nuances of immigration policy” – which he must have learned about on one of his congressional jaunts to a Las Vegas casino.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., said that Trump’s order “overreaches and undermines our constitutional system.” Evidently, he was suddenly struck by the realization that it’s “not lawful to ban immigrants on the basis of nationality,” despite having voted to ban refugees on the basis of nationality just 15 months earlier. (I’m OK with this, provided the Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis are sent to live on Justin’s street after being told about his support for gay marriage.)

Sens. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Ben Sasse, R-Neb., both rushed to the Washington Post with this refreshingly original point: NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS! Why, thank you, senators! Where would the GOP be without you?

The Post also quoted spokesmen – spokesmen! – for Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Rob Portman of Ohio and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina complaining about not having been briefed on Trump’s order. The senators themselves were far too busy to talk to the press because they were – wait, what were they doing again? Words With Friends? Decoupage?

Since the election, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., has been mostly occupied polishing his anti-Trump quotations to get a pat on the head from an admiring media. He complained about Trump’s order, saying it was “poorly implemented” and that he had to find out about it from reporters. (I wonder why.)

This is the moment we’ve been waiting for our entire lives, but Republicans in Congress refuse to do the people’s will. Their sole, driving obsession is to see Trump fail.

I am not presently calling for these useless, narcissistic, Trump-bashing Republicans to be defeated in their re-election bids, but they’re on my Watch List. To be cleared, they can start by getting off the phone with the Washington Post and passing one of those six Obamacare repeal bills.

Monday, February 13, 2017

Steve Bannon, Closet MARXIST!?

Leftopaths are full of shit, so I take this with a bottle of salt, but then again, facts is facts, as they say:
From the Ottawa Citizen & National Post, Saturday February 11, 2017, P.# NP1 & 2, and from here:
Revolution is not only inevitable, it’s necessary: 
How Steve Bannon’s dark vision could shape the world
Steve Bannon, the former naval officer, investment banker and right-wing media mogul who runs Donald Trump’s White House, has a habit of seeing the future in a single politician.
“This is a tectonic plate shift in American culture,” he once said of a renegade Republican with big hair, who speaks in run-on sentences untethered to facts, and whose bonkers family life is much loved by the tabloids.
That was Sarah Palin, the 2008 vice-presidential candidate once scorned (in Bannon’s words) as “Caribou Barbie meets Bible Spice.” But her “plate shift” never came true, and so with all the blind confidence of a failed fortune teller, Bannon moved on to the next vessel into which red state America could pour its hopes and resentments.
This time it worked out. Bannon’s vision is now a major driver of American policy, domestic and foreign.
To judge by his own writing and film-making (the late Andrew Breitbart, whose website Bannon ran, once called him the Leni Riefenstahl of the Tea Party), it is an apocalyptic vision of glory born out of chaos, of purifying destruction in which the old order will fall, and a new one rise.
Bannon, who has an unusual seat on the National Security Council, may be a conservative, but he is also a revolutionary. He draws on an intellectual tradition that, like Marxism, sees revolution as inevitable, even morally necessary.
“What we are witnessing now is the birth of a new political order, and the more frantic a handful of media elites become, the more powerful that new political order becomes itself,” Bannon told the Washington Post recently.
He was writing about Jeff Sessions, the newly confirmed Attorney General, whom he called “the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the implementation of (Trump’s) agenda.”
But he was also writing about America’s destiny, and his belief that the 20th century world order that was carved out of the chaos of the Second World War will be swept away, along with the social contract that emerged from the Great Depression.
For these ideas, he draws heavily on the work of Neil Howe and the late William Strauss, political economists who may be to Bannon’s White House what Leo Strauss was to Karl Rove’s — an intellectual inspiration, tinged with menace.
What we are witnessing now is the birth of a new political order, and the more frantic a handful of media elites become, the more powerful that new political order becomes itself
Their “generational theory” describes a seasonal, cyclical pattern in history, driven by predictable changes in the moods of successive generations, with each four-part cycle lasting an average human lifespan, about 80 years.
The sequence of four “turnings” begins with a “high,” as a new order is established. Then comes an “awakening,” as new values challenge the old order. Then there is an “unravelling,” as the old order decays. Then comes the “Fourth Turning,” the cataclysmic failure of the old order as a new one arrives, leading into the high of a new cycle.
In the current cycle, for example, the years after the Second World War were the high; the upheaval of the 1960s was the awakening; the culture wars of the 1990s were the unravelling; and the Fourth Turning arrived roughly when the economy went bust in 2008.
In America, Fourth Turnings have always turned out to be a crucible of something new and good. The first, the American Revolution, created the world’s first democratic republic. A lifespan later, the Civil War ended with guarantees of liberty and equality. A lifespan after that, the Second World War created the great 20th century American superpower.
But they have always involved war.
“All of our total wars have occurred in Fourth Turnings,” said Howe, who is also a director of an investment risk management firm.
When Bannon made Generation Zero, his 2010 film about the global recession, he consulted Howe, and also David Kaiser, a historian and expert on generational theory.
In an interview, Kaiser said it is unfortunate this theory is being portrayed in coverage of Bannon as a supernatural folly, “a nutty idea,” the wacky obsession of a demented presidential puppetmaster.
“It’s so obvious that their broad prediction is coming true, not only in the United States, but almost all over the world,” Kaiser said. “And now the Republicans want to finish the job. My real fear is we’re going to sink into real anarchy, that our institutions just won’t function at all.”
He said Bannon came across as genuinely curious, but set firmly in his conclusion that the old order will not fall easy. He made clear he anticipates a war.
“If we do get into a big crisis with Iran, or even with China, and there’s a danger of war, I don’t think that’s going to bother Bannon at all,” Kaiser said. “He is ready for it. He would view it with equanimity.”
Another geopolitical actor with pretensions to historical literacy is Vladimir Putin, Russia’s President, who shares the Russian dream of re-establishing dominance over all the Slavic lands, with Moscow as a Third Rome (after the “second,” Constantinople).
Russia is about one turning ahead of America, Kaiser said. It had a Fourth Turning with the 1917 Revolution, an awakening in the 1950s, and a Fourth Turning with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Today Russia is still in its “high,” not yet “awakening,” and in the words of Thomas E. Graham, managing director of Kissinger Associates and a former member of the National Security Council, it “exudes a prickly nationalism, born of wounded pride, a deep sense of vulnerability and an unquenched desire for respect.”
He could have been describing Donald Trump, and it is in this new dynamic, between two flawed alpha males, Trump and Putin, that the greatest threat of war may lie, thanks to Bannon’s dark vision.
From Obama to Trump, America’s Russian policy has gone from “feckless” to “reckless,” said Garry Kasparov, the former chess grandmaster and exiled Russian opposition figure. Trump has a “strange affinity” for Putin, he said, and a record of acting without regard for legality, and without calculating political risk.
“Putin knows the prospect of a ‘grand bargain’ would appeal to Trump’s vanity,” Kasparov said. But Russia is on “a crusade against the free world… Aggressive foreign policy is virtually the only tool Putin can use to justify his endless stay in power.”
“Putin had certainty with regard to Obama, and it was unpleasant certainty,” said Neil MacFarlane, an expert in Russian foreign policy at the University of Oxford. “Now he has uncertainty. Putin is no dope. He’ll play along to see how far he can get. We don’t know how far he can get, because the signals from the Trump administration are so ambiguous.”
Putin can meddle in Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia or Moldova because they are not in Western institutions, MacFarlane said. But the Baltics, which Putin covets as former Soviet states, are different, protected by NATO’s Article Five, collective defence.
Failure of the West to defend them would send the credibility of NATO “down the toilet,” he said, but there is no evidence that this problem weighs on Trump’s mind. Indeed, Trump has been openly skeptical of this duty.
“Maybe we should ask if it weighs on Steve Bannon’s mind,” MacFarlane said.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Pernicious Ubiquitous Administrative "Law"


From here:

Thierry Baudet, leader of the new Dutch political party Forum for Democracy / Facebook
In his dystopian classic, The Managerial Revolution (1941), the American political scientist James Burnham coined the concept of “controlled democracy“. According to Burnham, the civil democracies of the second half of the 20th century would – more or less gradually – be overgrown (overthrown?) with backroom bureaucratic networks that make the actual decisions, all far away from the electorate and public debate.
While this would slowly but surely erode the democratic mandate of governments, Burnham explicitly didn’t expect that this would lead to the dissolution of the European nation state – in name, that is.
“The many nations that are in fact being absolved (dissolved?) will remain existent in name; they can function as administrative subdivisions, but have no sovereignty.”
Elections will also remain in place; they will provide managers valuable insights into the preferences of the consumer-citizen, while at the same time functioning as an exhaust valve to possible opposition forces. Burnham predicted a form of political theatre in the guise of sham elections between candidates who happen to be like-minded on every fundamental subject, who are paid to debate in front of clueless spectators in mock parliaments, while the results were known in advance – after all, the actual decisions have already been made.
Not only did James Burnham’s work serve as the most important inspiration for George Orwell’s 1984, chances are Burnham also had a decisive influence on Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann – the founding fathers of the present day European Union. For after they tried to openly guide their “United States of Europe” through national parliaments, they chose, after the French parliament (while loudly singing the Marseillaise) voted down their plans in 1954, to use exactly the gradual and stealthy approach described by The Managerial Revolution to achieve their goals.
These Eurocrats label their strategy as “functionalism“, behind which the idea is that due to the so-called “spillover effect“, inevitably, ever more power ends up being centralised. One ‘function’ automatically forces another ‘function’. So: you sell open borders as a nice convenience, and after a while, you act surprised when they force you to adopt a centralised immigration policy. You present a monetary union as a facilitator of trade without having to hand over national sovereignty; and when the (inevitable) credit crisis presents itself, your push through a centralised budgetary system.
In the mendacious words of Monnet himself:
“We wish the community to take shape in a gradual process of change. Attempts to predict its final form are a contradictio in terminis.”
While he previously proclaimed to strive towards a federal European state, now all of a sudden it was an ‘open future’ he was after. He even went as far as to claim that it’s harmful to ask too many critical questions:
“Trying to anticipate the results will only smother ingenuity. Only by persevering, forwards and upwards, will new horizons present itself.”
In an attempt to provide some sort of philosophical justification for the European project, the German-American administrative scientist Ernst Haas wrote at the end of the 60’s that:
“We don’t have an alternative. We must seek refuge in graduality, in detours, in functionalism, if we wish to integrate the region. The functionalist who trusts in graduality and detours to fulfil his goals, must choose a strategy that unites the masses and alienates as few people as possible. Only with small steps and without a clear and logical plan, can he move in the right direction. For if he was to take great leaps, he would lose the support of many.”
Haas explains that walking down this path makes integration seem “almost self-evident” until it morphs “from mere customs union into an economic and political union.
And that’s exactly the way it all went. Behind the seemingly spontaneous cooperation between national democracies resides a continental super-state ― built step by step and hidden in the immeasurable corridors of Brussels’ vast bureaucracy, in Commission meetings and shady administrative backrooms, in guidelines that sometimes come into effect years after they were written and in strategic agreements of the “Committee of Regions”. The wiggle room for member states has practically been reduced to zero.
An example. Last summer the Dutch parliament ratified the association agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. The organisations GeenPeilCivil Committee EU and Forum for Democracy subsequently collected over 300.000 signatures in under six weeks, forcing an advisory, non-binding referendum on the matter. It was held on April 6, 2016, and resulted in an overwhelming 61% against the treaty.
Then something rather odd happened. The Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte stated even if The Netherlands revoked its ratification, the treaty would still be implemented. In other words: the entire national ratification process had been one big sham.
All those debates about the usefulness and necessity of the treaty had been little more than window dressing. Of course, the member states still use national parliaments and national ratification procedures; of course, they won’t fully abolish the institutions that deliver the democratic bread and circuses, but they have been reduced to mere symbols. It is, exactly as Burnham coined it, a form of  “controlled democracy“.
A few months later, another poignant example presented itself. The Dutch parliament was given a few hours (!) to study one hundred pages of EU directives on a centralised pension system. The parliament was asked if it would allow the Dutch Finance minister to approve this grand scheme that would place over 1200 billion euro in Dutch savings under Brussels’ control.
And as was to be expected, the parliament just went with it. An MP highly critical of the plan, Pieter Omtzigt (Christian Democrats), commented that it had simply been impossible to study the consequences of this plan, in such a short amount of time. And as it turned out, hitting the brakes was not longer an option either. The Netherlands no longer had the right to veto in the EU departments where such matters are decided!
One cannot help being reminded of the stringent teacher who assigns a student his homework and says: “This is your task, alright? Do we have an understanding?” The question is merely rhetorical – and is as humiliating to the student who has nothing to offer but his artificial concurrence, as it is to the peoples of this continent.
Meanwhile, national leaders are being co-opted by offering them future EU-positions accompanied by very high (and mostly tax-free) paychecks, a driver and other exquisite working conditions – without the possibility of being relieved by their annoying electorates.
During his national career, the Dutch Finance minister, Jeroen Dijsselbloem was appointed as the head of the Eurogroup ― right at the moment, The Netherlands was about cause trouble by doubting yet another EU bailout package for Greece. A more severe conflict of interest was hard to imagine, since Dijsselbloem had now become both prosecutor and judge. But anything is possible in Eurotopia; and even before the ink of his signature had dried, he abolished the parliamentary work group tasked with exploring exit strategies in case of a next euro crisis.
Coincidence? Hardly.
Universities and civil society
Civil society too has been gripped by the EU. Oxfam, World Wide Fund for Nature, One World Action and hundreds, if not thousands of other ‘charities’ receive annual EU subsidies – and who will bite the hand that feeds him? And to make matters worse, there’s the ‘professional associations’ like the ‘European Union of Journalists’, the ‘European Women’s Lobby’, the ‘European Cyclists’ Federation, and so on – all an integral part of Brussels’ management system, and of course they propagate the virtues of EU expansion almost round the clock.
In universities in the meantime, the EU project is being propagated by professors in the Jean Monnet chairs, creating a pensée unique so visceral that employees at economy faculties frequently whisper my way that it’s categorically impossible to publicly criticise the euro. It would rule out promotions or future appointments, not to speak of research grants.
Does anyone truly expect a critical sound from the European ‘Horizon network‘ (which is allowed to spend billions in previously national research grants)? No, they would rather have one study the perils of ‘nationalism’ and ‘xenophobia’, as criticism of open borders is called in today’s Orwellian newspeak.
The EU has also revealed itself as the big corporations’ best friend. Even though it presents itself as an anti-cartel institution, it actually facilitates the formation of cartels by sitting corporate lobbyists right next to the so-called ‘expert groups’ of the European Commission who draft guidelines and regulations that enable multinationals to expand their operations throughout the EU, while at the same time excluding competition from smaller businesses by making entry conditions next to impossible. The prohibition of the slaughtering of animals on farms, with the official goal of “the protection of public health”, for example. The bio-industry thrives on it, while it kills smaller bio-friendly entrepreneurs. Think of strict regulations for bed&breakfasts regarding sanitary facilities and pets, making it harder for them to compete with large hotel chains.
Think of regulations for window-cleaners and condoms, vegetables and fruits, raw milk cheeses, white and yellow car headlights, vacuum cleaners above 1800 watt, coffee machines and vitamins. If you look closely it’s always a small club of large multinational companies pushing out the middle and small level companies with regulations seem to serve some kind of abstract purpose. Animal welfare, women’s emancipation, or something vaguely environmental.
Big business and big government thus go hand in hand and form a conglomerate of managers who pass each other the ball. This is also why Goldman Sachs executive Draghi’s transfer to the European Central Bank (ECB) went so smoothly, while the ex-president of the European Commission seamlessly transferred to Goldman Sachs. It’s why ALDE’s party leader Guy Verhofstadt cashes 190.000 euro a year as an advisor to investment funds with interests in shale gas (in Ukraine among other places) and why European Parliament member is also a commissioner at Mercedes-Benz.
Can one still be surprised that the automobile industry ‘together with the European Commission’ succeeded in creating legislation that was very advantageous to… diesel engines? While Japan was experimenting with electric cars, during the 90’s Volkswagen had a whole arsenal of TDI diesel engines for sale. A whole body of regulations was drafted to ‘protect the environment’ since diesel engines emit less CO2 than gasoline engines. But in the meantime, diesel does pollute more than twenty times as much as gasoline. The consequence of this EU stimulus package: the market share of diesel engines grew from 10% in 1995 to over 50% in 2012.
Losing grip by watering down
In addition, it’s critical to understand that all these processes and systems are not controlled from one central place – the trick is that European sovereignty is very hard to pin down. To the contrary even, one could say that European sovereignty has been watered down and diluted so much that it spread and branched out like vapour. Almost everyone has lost its grip on it.
The European Commission initiates legislation, the European Council debates (records are classified). The EU Council of Ministers has its say, and don’t forget the EU Court of Justice, counselling bodies of national politicians, formalised lobbies and the Committee of Permanent Representatives. Oh, and of course, there’s the European Parliament with its 751 members ― who can hardly communicate amongst one another due to language barriers ― claiming to represent 600 million Europeans. Enfin, the result of it all is a nightmare that no one actually controls and that no one can reform.
But now for the astonishing part: even the greatest europhile would admit to all this. In an exceptionally cynical manifestation of Orwellian newspeak – again – this is called the “democratic deficit“. They look very serious and serene and repeat: ‘yes, you’re right, there’s a democratic deficit‘.
Brilliant! As if it’s some sort of temporary flaw that can easily be overcome. A cash flow problem that just needs a small credit injection. A lack of vitamins. A mild form of sleep deprivation. Something, that in any case, will soon recover. A disbalance that will soon balance itself out.
But as Burnham’s analysis of the managerial revolution illustrates: the EU’s abolishment of democracy is neither temporary nor overcomeable.The EU is not so much undemocratic as it is anti-democratic. A democratic EU is impossible. The plans by Monnet and Schumann that were voted down when presented honestly in 1954, would suffer a similar fate in 2017. Nobody wants to live in a United States of Europe. Europe is not a country. We don’t speak the same languages. A population of 600 million is too large for a functioning and transparent democracy.
Politicians lie
Government leaders, parliaments and politicians are pretending. They have to pretend the EU isn’t a super state and never will be; they must pretend they have a grip on EU decision-making; that EU officials are democratically elected and owe accountability to an electorate that can remove them – in Copernican terms; they must pretend as if they orbit the common voter. But that’s no longer the case. Mainstream politicians have been incorporated into the continental system. The EUdoesn’t orbit nation states – the nation state has become a satellite in the blue yellow galaxy of the EU.
In 1964 George Orwell wrote an elaborate critique of Burnham’s thinking. Eventually, he proposed, the reign of the managers cannot sustain itself because 1) it’s a closed circuit which will produce minds too weak to uphold the system, and 2) the human inclination toward liberty is too strong, and, due to modern communication, won’t let itself be chained.
While Orwell would expand on Burnham’s dystopian vision in his novel 1984, which is situated in a world where the power of the manager is complete and eternal, his political philosophy is a starting point of hope. The practical translation of which is: the referendum.
All over Europe, we see the call for a plebiscite, for direct participation in public affairs. The people are signing petitions by the masses. It’s become impossible for politicians to ignore, so they reluctantly promise their electorates a direct say. Despite the EU still claiming to be a force of democracy by and for the people, referenda are the management system’s Achilles heel. A public uprising can be put down; a new political movement can be incorporated, but referenda are beyond the grasp of bureaucratic rulers.
One referendum, of course, doesn’t win the war. In 2005, the French and the Dutch both overwhelmingly rejected a European constitution. A few years later, that same constitution was still pushed through, albeit under a different name; the treaty of Lissabon. What followed was a ten-year silence until in 2015 the Greeks had a referendum in which they rejected proposed new austerity measures.  The EU decided to dethrone prime minister Papandreou and replace him with the unelected former vice-president of the ECB, Papademos.
How much longer do Eurocrats hope to maintain this state of affairs? The second Dutch referendum – on the treaty with Ukraine – cannot be ignored completely. The British choice to leave the EU will have severe consequences. Hungary held a decisive referendum on EU immigration quota. The Italian referendum was a victory for anti-EU forces. Finland is considering a referendum on the euro and the Czech president last year considered a referendum on leaving the EU altogether – the so-called Czexit.
The coalition of free nations has thus far been led by Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. With Great Britain as a fourth member, it’s starting to look like a winning team. Through British negotiations, the alternatives to a continental super-state will start to take shape; a vastly more attractive form of cooperation based on freedom, sovereignty and democracy.
Now is the time to pull through and bring down this managers’ empire. Now is the time to replace this controlled democracy by governments who are accountable to its citizens, and act in our interests.

Friday, February 10, 2017

"Judge" Robart WRONG About U.S. Terrorist Convictions!

From here:
"Judge" James Robart asked a Justice Department lawyer how many arrests of foreign nationals from the countries have occurred since 9/11. When the lawyer said she didn't know, Robart answered his own question: "Let me tell, you, the answer to that is none, as best I can tell. You're here arguing on behalf of someone that says we have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries and there's no support for that."

Byron York at the Washington Examinerdetailed just how "not quite right" Robart's contention was:
Judge James Robart, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington State, believes there is no basis for President Trump's executive order temporarily suspending non-American entry from seven terrorism-plagued countries.
... In that brief moment, Robart declared there is "no support" for Trump's decision. And with that, the judge from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington State ordered a nationwide — actually worldwide — halt to enforcement of the president's executive order.
Now, it turns out Robart might not know as much as he let on. Last summer, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest analyzed public sources of information, seeking to learn more about people convicted of terror-related offenses. The Justice Department provided the subcommittee with a list of 580 people who were convicted — not just arrested, but tried and convicted — of terror-related offenses between Sept. 11, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2014.
The subcommittee investigated further and found that at least 380 of the 580 were foreign-born and that an additional 129 were of unknown origin. Of the 380, there were representatives — at least 60 — from all of the countries on the Trump executive order list. And with 129 unknowns, there might be more, as well.
In addition, since the Senate list was compiled, there have been others involved in terrorism in the United States from the seven countries.
The bottom line is, Robart's confident assertion to Bennett was wrong.

Total War: Extinguishing Islam from Earth

Re-blogged from here:

We must recognize the entire Islamic ideology as our enemy. Not just ISIS, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, etc. But ALL of Islam.
Even if we destroyed 100% of ISIS today, another group of Muslims would begin to form tomorrow under a different name, but with the same objective: Worldwide Caliphate.
Attaching euphemistic terms like “Radical” or “Extremist” to Islam is an exercise of Western arrogance. These terms serve only to mislead us into a false sense of security by thinking, “If we can just get rid of the bad apples, the World can then live in peace with this great and noble religion.”
There is no Radical Islam. There is no Moderate Islam. There’s only Islam. All schools of Islam teach to slay the unbelievers wherever you find them. All schools of Islam teach the superiority of Muslims above everyone else. All schools of Islam teach that women are half as equal to men, and exist only to please men and breed Mujaheddin. All schools of Islam advocate slavery. There is no benign form of Islam. Anyone saying otherwise is lying. It’s pure evil.
I don’t go to Church every Sunday or pray before each meal, but I’m no less of a Christian than one who does. I believe in The Trinity and The Lord’s Word just as much as any other Christian. That doesn’t make me “moderate,” and doesn’t make Catholic Priests “Radical.” This just means I’m less devout. In similarity, individual Muslims within the Ummah (the Muslims collectively) each practice varying degrees of devoutness. But if push comes to shove, and we find ourselves in a World War against the Ummah, you can bet every Muslim will become a “devout” jihadist in a heartbeat. Jihad has many forms. A Muslim needs not commit an act of terrorism to be a jihadist.
Moreover, I’m among just 1% of Americans who’ve served in the US Military, trained, ready, and willing to fight for our cause. Does that make us radical, and the other 99% of Americans moderate and less patriotic, less committed to America, unwilling to support and fight for our country? Of course not. We’d all fight to the death before surrendering America.
In WWII, even more Americans than now, a full 10% were involved in the War. And that was Total War, for all the marbles. Every American was in it to win it. Does that mean just 10% of Americans were “radical” and the other 90% were “moderate?” Again, of course not.
The same analogy applies now to our Islamic War with the Ummah. This too is Total War for all the marbles. But this enemy is much larger and less honorable, with no uniforms and no front lines. They’re trained liars living among us, using their toolbox of well-crafted lies to convince the useful idiots among us they’re our friends. This is a zero-sum conflict with only one winner. Just ask the Ummah. They’ve been wanting a Worldwide Caliphate for 1400 years. They’re very patient, and they’ll never give up; not without an overwhelming show of force on our part, demonstrating to them their victory is impossible. Three or four strategic nuke strikes, broadcast in HD across all social media will begin showing this reality to them.
Now that they’re getting their hands on nuclear weapons in the 11th hour of the 1400 Year War, you can bet they’re not about to give them up: They can smell victory with the Apocalypse. So we’d all better be in this to win it.
The Radical/Moderate Islam distinction is false.
This is a World War between the Islamic World, Dar al-Islam, and the REST of the World, Dar al-Harb. Naive pundits saying otherwise, demanding the (non-existent) Moderate Muslims join with us to destroy the Radical Muslims, are dangerous, ignorant fools trying to lead the rest of us off the cliff. They’re lying to you. Islam, entirely, must end. Just like Nazism and Shintoism. That’s the cold, stark truth. We’re in a World War against 1.6 Billion Muslims. Face it, and fight. This one’s for all the marbles. It’s a war to the death.
There is only one Quran and Sunnah that all Muslims worship. There’s just Islam, and it’s pure evil. You need not take my word for it. Just listen to Turkish PM Recep Erdogan: “The term ‘moderate Islam’ is ugly and offensive. There is no moderate Islam. Islam is Islam.”
Muslims believe the Quran is the literal word of Allah, therefore sacrosanct in perfection, Eternally immutable, and 100% mandatory in compliance for all humans on Earth. Nobody is allowed to selectively adhere to some directives, while dismissing others. Allah’s word is non-negotiable.
Here’s a small sampling of directives from the one and only Quran, which Muslims believe was verbally revealed by Allah to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel, gradually over a period of approximately 23 years, beginning in AD 609, when Muhammad was 40, and concluding in 632, the year of his death:
“Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.” 2:191
“Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.” 3:28
“Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.” 3:85
“Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam.” 5:33
“Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Quran.” 8:12
“Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.” 8:60
“The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.” 8:65
“When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you find them.” 9:5
“The Jews and Christians are perverts, fight them.” 9:30
“Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” 9:123
Disarming Iran and destroying ISIS aren’t enough. It’s just a matter of time before another devout Muslim group under a different name figures out how to build, buy, or steal nukes. Whether it’s 1 month, 1 year, 10 years, or 100 years, it will happen. Islam in its entirety must be destroyed.
Jihad is compulsory for all Muslims.
They’re either in the Ummah or they’re not. Muslims won’t criticize their brothers, and why would they? They’re all following the rules of their Quran, which they believe is the literal word of their deity. Remember, no one gets to debate Allah. This is why Islam will NEVER be reformed. It can only be criminalized.
Reforming Islam would deny the initial “perfection” of Allah’s word and Muhammad. This won’t happen in 10 years. This won’t happen in 10,000 years. Moreover, Muslims suggesting such reformation are guilty of Blasphemy, and are promptly executed.
Emulating Muhammad (the liar, mass murderer, robber, rapist, and pedophile, “the perfect man”) is also mandatory.
Isolationists suggest “containment” of Muslims as a solution, erecting giant walls, keeping the bad guys “over there.” Isolationism doesn’t work though. For starters, millions of Muslims are already living here among us. More Muslims (with WMD) will figure out ways to sneak in anyway, either in person, ICBM, or nuke on a container ship.
Isolation and Containment has been naively attempted already with North Korea, the most isolated and ostracized nation on Earth. They too gave promises of “No Nukes” in exchange for a release of sanctions and food commodities for their people to survive. The result? In 2006, North Korea successfully tested their first Atomic-Bomb. In January 2016, they tested their first Hydrogen-Bomb (1000 times stronger than the A-Bomb). That same month, the North Koreans successfully put an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) into a sustained Low Earth Orbit (LEO), putting two satellites into LEO. So now, just as soon as they figure out how to miniaturize a nuke warhead small enough to mount atop an ICBM, they have the ability to drop a Hydrogen Weapon on us at will with the push of a button.
But who needs ICBMs when you have submarines that can launch 2500 mile-range missiles from a submerged position? Yes, the N Koreans demonstrated they can do that in 2016, which covers most every major American city.
Their leader would become invulnerable to all but the most massive of counter-attacks, and he knows it. He also knows that no matter what, he can take out Seoul, 30 miles away, with a nuke strike counter-attack melee, with 25.55 Million population, including tens of thousands of US Military personnel. A high price to pay for the United States.
That’s the sort of lose-lose scenario that Isolation and Containment gets us.
Look at the apparently unstoppable al-hijrah, Muslim emigration to spread Islam, which the native Europeans are experiencing now. Muslims by the millions are embedded everywhere in Europe, wreaking havoc on a daily basis.
Dennis Michael Lynch produced a movie, “They Come to America III.” He filmed an ice bridge between Canada and NY. The Canada side has a mosque/madrassa the size of a large university campus. Hundreds of Suburban loads of Muslims have been driving across into NY daily, completely out of sight and unopposed by US Border Patrol. So even if we build a Supermax Fence along the entire 1933 mile Mexican border, the Muslims will still come through the 3987 mile Canadian border.
Moreover, deporting Muslim US citizens isn’t practical. They have rights to remain. Which other countries would be obliged to take them? So all we can really do is criminalize Islam for them, making the practice or promotion of it a capital offense.
All Muslims either swing the sword, or support those swinging the sword. None can be trusted. Unpredictably, any may switch from supporter to swordsman in a heartbeat. One out of every seven US KIAs in Afghanistan are Green-on-Blue: US trained Afghan troops turning their guns on us.
People willing to murder their own children to please a fictional deity are deadly serious about their cause. Their will to fight is much greater than ours. They’ve been focused on Worldwide Dar al-Islam for 1400 years. They will never give up until we’re all converted, subjugated, or dead.
The fact is, we neither have the time, money, nor method to sort out the “good” Muslims from the bad ones who would saw off our heads or nuke us if handed the button. Are there any good Muslims anyway? Any individual buying into the evil contained between the covers of the Quran has a heart and soul manipulated by demons.
Neither did our grandfathers have the time, money, nor method to sort out the good Germans and Japanese from the bad ones. So they bombed every German and Japanese man, woman, and child in sight until they surrendered unconditionally. We wouldn’t have won the war if we didn’t. We’d best develop the stomach and will to do the same.
The objective is not to exterminate Muslims, but rather to destroy their Islamic ideology. In much the same way the World could live in peace with the Germans once we destroyed Nazism.
We simply don’t have enough gold or military to invade and occupy 57 Muslim countries. And the scale is way too big now for airstrikes.
Incremental Random Strategic Area Bombing is the ONLY solution. “Incremental,” to minimize enemy casualties and damage, giving them the opportunity to reconsider their loyalty to Allah. And “Random,” such that no one knows where to hide, convincing every Muslim on Earth he and his family could be next. Civilian pressure upon their governments to comply with Allied terms would be overwhelming.
Following the military force, Muslims will be much more receptive to indoctrination with Allied ideologies and Christianity.
Destroying an idea or every Quran in the World is impossible. And as with Nazism and Communism, Islam will always be in the history books.
But, if criminalized Worldwide, this would exclude tenacious resisting Muslims from society, forcing them to live as animals in caves. Not even their patriarch bin Laden could stand that for very long, hence the 38,000 square-foot walled Abbottabad compound, complete with electricity, plumbing, toilets, TV, and Internet.
We’re not required to consider Islam a religion or tolerate it simply because a 7th century psychopath said so. In fact, Islam is a criminal enterprise, with Sedition and Conspiracy to Murder right at the top of the list: A list including scores of other felonies. All that’s necessary is an honest and long overdue reclassification of Islam from “the religion of peace,” into Capital Felony. Then impose capital punishment on those practicing or promoting Islam. We can do that within our own borders, and force every Muslim government on Earth to do the same.
Iran is weeks away from nukes, and they promise to kill us with them. Meanwhile, most Americans want to end all wars and eat ice cream. Iran is the more immediate threat, being so close to nukes, so they’re quite happy to see us all distracted by ISIS, giving them cover to finish their assembly, attaching the warheads to their ICBMs.
This is Total War, for all the marbles, and we’d better wise up quick.
We must ally with Israel, UK, France, India, China, and Russia, then drop one nuke on a random Muslim target every three days until all Muslim sovereignties Worldwide criminalize Islam. Every Muslim government criminalizing Islam comes off the target list, getting to keep their power and territory. The Muslims would get on board with the program real quick.
Muslim governments who resist watch their cities get vaped one at a time until they lose the will to resist. Then the Allies divide up their territory, install our own governments, and exploit their resources for ourselves.
In exchange for Russia helping us destroy Islam and Iranian leadership, we let Putin annex Iran and its resources for Russia. His desire to have all that strategic Persian Gulf warm water access, oil rich territory for his Motherland’s empire far exceeds any superficial loyalty he may feel toward the Ayatollah. Much better for Russia to control Iran rather than crazy Muslims bent on killing us.
Similarly, we could offer China incentives to ally with us to destroy Islam. Good Lord, they want extra territory so badly they’re building their own islands from scratch in the ocean.
Bashar al-Asaad, with his Western wife and education, isn’t a typical Muslim thug, and is a much better option to lead Syria than a devout ISIS type of Muslim who would fill the vacuum taking his place.
King Abdullah II, a friend Westernized as well, and al-Asaad would likely be on board with the Post-Islamic World plan, rather than get nuked out of power, and losing it all. Their lust for wealth and power exceeds their loyalty for Allah, and they could be helpful in persuading other Muslim heads of state to do the same. We could make these two men, and others similar, leaders of neighboring Muslim territories whose leaders resist and must be removed.
We should encourage Christianity, not force it, but make Apostasy from Islam mandatory.
On Day One of the operation, we target Iranian nuke production sites, the Pakistani nuke arsenal, and Raqqa. Targeting hardware first, threatening population centers later. We’d broadcast plenty of Battle Damage Assessment video and threats across all social media. This is how our grandfathers would do it, because it works.
The Muslims must see our will to use Shock & Awe overwhelming force against them. They must feel technologically and intellectually inferior to Allied powers, and realize Allah will never save them.
Trinity, the first atomic weapon test, was on 16 JUL 1945. The Hiroshima strike was less than 3 weeks later on 6 August. If our grandfathers had atomic weapons on 7 DEC 1941, would they have waited 3 1/2 years, sacrificing 408,900 of our finest Americans before using them? Of course not. They weren’t stupid, and we’re arrogant to think we’re intellectually and morally superior to them.
FDR unleashed our ruthless warfighters to do whatever it took to win, and they did so decisively. Arrogant CINCs since have hamstrung our brave troops with unwinnable ROE. If politicians would simply describe the National objective, then let our military call the shots, we’d never lose.
Here’s a quote from General Curtis LeMay, America’s longest serving 4-Star General in history; father of Strategic Area Bombing, and later the Commander of USAF Strategic Air Command. He’s the one American credited with the deaths of more people than any other; over 350,000 enemy soldiers and civilians at a minimum:
“I think there are many times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons. However, the public opinion in this country and throughout the world throw up their hands in horror when you mention nuclear weapons, just because of the propaganda that’s been fed to them.
As far as casualties were concerned I think there were more casualties in the first attack on Tokyo with incendiaries than there were with the first use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The fact that it’s done instantaneously, maybe that’s more humane than incendiary attacks, if you can call any war act humane. I don’t, particularly, so to me there wasn’t much difference. A weapon is a weapon and it really doesn’t make much difference how you kill a man. If you have to kill him, well, that’s the evil to start with and how you do it becomes pretty secondary. I think your choice should be which weapon is the most efficient and most likely to get the whole mess over with as early as possible.”
LeMay also said: “I’ll tell you what war is all about. It’s about killing people. If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting. There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn’t bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders.”
Here’s a quote from our Allied friend, Sir Arthur Harris, Commander of RAF Bomber Command during WWII:
“The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naïve theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
The aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive…should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany.
… the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.”
To this day, America still teaches these strategies to all Field Grade military officers. This is how wars are won. To achieve victory, we must do this now on an unprecedented scale the World has never seen. The alternative is the loss of Civilization.
We could destroy Islam inside of 10 weeks, for less than $10 Billion, without losing one Allied serviceman’s life.
We owe it to our children to win this fight now. This is our problem. Let’s not be cowards and make it theirs.
The Muslims are moments away from the capacity to nuke millions of us on a horrific scale. No guesswork necessary. They promise to do this to us.
We must act now. The solution is quite simple and inexpensive. All we need is the will.
Six year war vet Afghanistan/Iraq
Disciple of Christ and Crusader for Freedom