Saturday, May 27, 2017

Does Trump Really "Get It" In The Middle East?

First, my take on the MIddle East and Jews in general:

There is a tacit alliance between Israel in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and other Arab/Muslim countries. This alliance opposes the Iranians and Assad of Syria quite forcefully and is adamant about it, which is why you hear so much anti-Iran rhetoric from our lickspittle politicians.

This is also related to domestic Jewish overwhelming support for just about any kind of behavior from the Israeli governments. I hasten to add that many Christian groups and American politicians also demonstrate such support.

Jews in America tend to be overrepresented among the left, all the way from the classical marxists to the cultural marxists, but again, they're accompanied in this by appallingly self-destructive Christian and Secular (not much difference there these days) groups. And there are a lots of patriotic American Jews who oppose the left as much as I do.

As for Israel, I'm no Zionist. As a Middle Eastern country, I regard it as rather free and enlightened. As a European country, it's repressive and authoritarian, and deserves little respect and no financial aid from us.

I don't agree with everything Eric Margolis says below. For example, I see no reason think Trump "hates" Islam. I rather expect he thinks like I do — that it's fine in Islamic countries if they want it, but incompatible with the West and Muslims shouldn't be granted entry for that reason.

But what I'm hoping, of course, is that Trump's take on the area is similar to mine, and that his behavior is an attempt to take reality into account while preventing hostility on the left from growing enough to cause a liberal/neocon alliance to develop strong enough to stop his agenda. So to answeer my own question, I hope he gets it but I can't be sure. You ever notice how hard it is to type with your fingers crossed? This is from lewrockwell.com


Trump of Arabia

Monday, May 22, 2017

Innocents Abroad? — Let's Hope Not

We Americans are a naive bunch in many ways. Let's hope that Trump isn't representing that side of us on his whirlwind tour of the territories of some of the world's trickiest bastards.

One of our naive beliefs is that Israel is constantly being mistreated by any and all Arab/Muslim nations. Actually, the Israelis provoke a lot of the mistreatment by dishing out some mistreatment of their own(and sometimes they even bite the hand that feed them — see this link, and there are Arab/Muslim nations who are actually allies of israel. Turkey and Saudi Arabia spring to mind. The Musim/Arab world, you see, is not monolithic, and componets of it are constantly struggling against others. Justin Raimondo, over at antiwar.com [link] expounds on our relationship with the Arabia, for example:


Donald of Arabia: A Disgusting Spectacle


This is the worst yet
by , May 22, 2017
Has there been a more disgusting spectacle during the four months of this presidency than the sight of Donald Trump slobbering all over the barbarous Saudi monarch and his murderous family of petty princelings? It’s enough to make any normal American retch, especially when one remembers what Trump said about them during the election:
“Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays. Hillary must return all money from such countries!”
And then there was this tweet:
“Tell Saudi Arabia and others that we want (demand!) free oil for the next ten years or we will not protect their private Boeing 747s. Pay up!”
Now Trump’s son in law, Jared Kushner, is calling up Lockheed-Martin to get a discount for the Saudis, personally brokering the biggest arms deal in US history. What a difference a presidency makes!
The old Trump told us that the Saudis were “mouth pieces, bullies, cowards,” who were “paying ISIS,” but now they’re our partners in the “war on terrorism.” Why it seems like only yesterday that he was calling out Saudi princes like Alwaleed bin Talal for thinking they can “control our US politicians” – today he’s kowtowing to them.
Most tellingly, it was Trump who made a campaign issue out of the missing 28 pages redacted from the Joint congressional report on the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In calling for their release, he painted a scenario in which the Saudi royals assisted the hijackers and said:
“You know, it’s sort of nice to know who your friends are, and perhaps who your enemies are.”
Does Trump know who are our friends and who are our enemies?
While the US government, under both Trump and Obama, has routinely maintained that Iran is the biggest exporter of terrorism, that is utter nonsense: the Saudis easily outdo the mullahs of Tehran. Riyadh funds radical madrassas throughout the world that preach pure hatred of the West: they are incubators of terrorism, and have been wreaking havoc from one end of the globe to the other for decades. The terrorist groups that have destroyed Syria are the progeny of the Saudis, and their allies among the Gulf states.
Most shameful of all, the Saudis have invaded nearby Yemen, slaughtering children and women with impunity, bombing funeral processions, and causing a famine that will kill hundreds of thousands of noncombatants: the very young, the sick, and the old. And they’re doing it with US assistance, a pact signed in blood under the Obama administration, now continued and beefed up under Trump.
In all fairness, this is nothing new as far as the US is concerned: our relationship with the Saudi monarchy goes all the way back to Franklin Roosevelt, who cemented the alliance in 1943 by declaring that the defense of their medieval dictatorship was “vital” to our national security: US taxpayer dollars flowed into the Saudi treasury via the Lend-Lease giveaway. The flow hasn’t stopped since that time: indeed, it has only increased.
And the flow will turn into a torrent if Trump’s wacky idea of an Arab NATO ever comes to fruition. We’ll be paying their “defense” bills unto eternity, while they send their army of head-chopping assassins out to murder infidels on a global scale – and US arms dealers rake in cash hand over fist.

Yes, the US-Saudi relationship is one of the central pillars of our globalist foreign policy – but wasn’t Trump supposed to be different? Wasn’t he supposed to be putting America first? Of all the betrayals we’ve had to endure since he took the White House, his pilgrimage to the epicenter of world terrorism has got to be the absolute worst. As he kneels before the Saudi king, he humiliates all of us.
Read the rest HERE:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/05/21/donald-of-arabia-a-disgusting-spectacle/
-------------
Quibcag: I found the ax-wielding girl at http://www.animespirit.ru/forum/topic_12152

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Allons, Enfants!

If you were French, would you vote for a branleur who says vapid, politically correct drivel like this? I should hope not, especially if you have Marine Le Pen to vote for instead.

As I have said over and over one way or another on this blog, the intrinsic value of Islamic culture isn't the issue — it's the compatibility of that culture with the culture of the West (of which French culture is one component), and that compatibility just isn't there. Insofar as culture in France is diverse, it's self-destructive and useless in practice.

So when Macron hastens to remind us that diverse is good, he's demonstrating his willingness to let Algerian or Malian or whatever cultures replace French Culture. Vote Le Pen!
--------------
Quibcag: I found the illustration here:
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/cartoons/steph-bergol2/index.htm

Friday, April 28, 2017

Defining "Diversity"

On a discussion board around the corner, the word "diversity" is being argued about. Sort of. One commenter said, basically, that diversity is about things like cuisine and similar customs that can be easily incorporated into other cultures without a problem. I replied that it's better to state that diversity should be limited to such things, but that it's not. And it's a word that has to be defined whenever it's used, lest one be misunderstood. In practice, "diversity" has come to mean that third-world savages can move into the West and do whatever they damn please, rape just being one cultural heritage we're getting a taste of here and in Europe.

The fact is that our globalist/liberal/neocon masters want us to think diversity is about felafel and sushi and the occasional funny hat, so that maybe we won't notice that the raping and murdering and rioting is on the rise all over the place, very much in proportion to the number of third-world immigrants we welcome in. They'll do or say anything they can to obfuscate the actual results of such immigration.

Matt Bailey, as he always does, sizes up the situation succinctly and clearly:
----------------------
Guest post by Matt Bailey:

A bunch of White, Western European Christians with slightly different languages but basically identical cultural values who perforce all assimilate into an American culture isn't really all that "diverse". We tend to think it is because of Eurocentrism, but now we are being asked to try REAL diversity, importing people who don't have Socrates, Aristotle, Christ, John Locke etc in their culture past. And so far, it looks like a nation with real diversity is precisely as efficient as a boat that oarsmen are trying to row in all different directions.

The problem is that Americans are ignorant enough to think/have been conditioned to think that diversity consists entirely of food/clothing/funny accents and that everyone is an American deep inside. They don't realize that there is very real global diversity of feeling/thinking on the propriety of raping un-escorted "immodestly dressed" females or blowing up ancient monuments because they are "graven images" etc. That's how you get people who think the Iraqis will welcome Western democracy or that France can still be France after taking in all of North Africa.

Another commenter replies:

Diversity is in things like whether you retire with your children, what your duties to your parents are (and whether you have a duty to your parents to get married to someone of the opposite sex and have children of your own). Diversity involves whether you work for someone else or whether your businesses are all tied to households.

But to the Left, these are the things to liberate everyone from, into the arms of corporations. That way diversity can be reduced to a choice of whether to eat Mexican food or Chinese food.

Diversity is also whether or not torturing and eating dogs or sexual relations with prepubescent boys is acceptable. If you don't want those things in your country you have to forbid importation of cultures that practice them.

Well yes, I imagine ordinary citizen globalist types do imagine that with the importation of Syrians they'll get Middle Eastern cuisine and music or something but *not* get the same barbarism that makes Syria into the kind of place that people want to flee. They are mistaken of course. As for globalist leaders, it's hard for me to believe they are that blind to the obvious thus one tends to assign to them more nefarious motives.

Even some relatively innocuous diversity can result in inefficiencies equivalent to oarsman trying to row a boat in different directions. Western handsaws cut on the pushstroke, Japanese saws on the pull stroke. No one is "right" or "wrong" here, but having to have a diverse carpentry shop could result in some zany sub-optimal results.
--------------
Quibcags: The first is illustrated by Kagura and her alien dog Sadaharu, of Gin Tama (銀魂 Gintama, lit. "Silver Soul"). The second by a character from some anime, I forget which, who is actually named "Mithra." The last is illustrated by characters from Nichijou (日常).

Jack Vance, Baron Bodissey, Gates of Vienna, and SJWs Everywhere

The first quibcag is a genuine quote from Jack Vance, and to emphasize that, I use an actual picture of Vance instead of my usual anime cutie-pie, though I'm sure Jack Vance himself would have been quite content with the latter. He said and wrote a lot of very good things, and I'll be doing more quibcags from them in the future.

Now, then, the second quibcag here is a quote from Gates of Vienna [link], which one would know if one had thoroughly read my last post. Now, the blogger who runs that site uses "Baron Bodissey" as a pseudonym [link].* So it is not a quote from Jack Vance. Although, and this is no doubt why the pseudonym was picked, it is something Jack Vance might very well have said. It fits in with the way he thinks.

In my opinion, Jack Vance is one of the greatest writers of his era. I've done several posts on him and his works, and you can find them by entering Jack Vance in "search this blog" at the top of the sidebar there on the right.

Well, to continue this story, I sent a link to my last post plus the quibcag to a discussion board devoted to Jack Vance [link]. I would have expected a board of Vance fans to be a little more sophisticated than most, but, alas, one commenter pounced on the quibcag and said something sarcastic about me "hating Muslims." Interesting, no? The quote takes pains not to judge the intrinsic nature of Muslims or Islam, but rather to stress that they are different from us. And when you read the blog post that goes with it, you'll find no more "hate" there, but just the undeniable assertion that Islam is based on assumptions that we do not accept, and that therefore it is not compatible with the West. But I was accused of "hate" anyway. What's a SJW doing on a Jack Vance discussion board. But that's a bit unfair. He may not be a SJW at all, but is simply reacting in a way he's been taught. Any criticism of the flavor of the month — in this case Muslims/Islam — is to be denounced as some kind of "hate." It's an impulse that goes, as they say, to the spine and back rather than to the brain.

But it gets better. On the same board, discussing Vance's
The Gray Prince, a member comments:

Like most of us here, in view of Mr. Vance's entire body of work, it's virtually impossible to imagine he was capable of racial prejudice in his personal life. That said, "The Gray Prince" does invoke some disturbing parallels with racist practices and attitudes, particularly those in the antebellum South.
Those of you who know Vance's work (and if you don't you have a treat waiting for you) would not expect knee-jerk liberalism out of him on race or class or anything else. His attitude is typified by the quote in the third quibcag. Now, I don't know what the commenter actually means by "it's virtually impossible to imagine he was capable of racial prejudice in his personal life," but I imagine he has some amorphous thing in mind about Vance being horrified at anything that violates the liberal narrative on the subject. And that's absurd, because any reading of Vance leads one to conclude that he's profoundly conservative (not neoconservative) and well aware of the reality and utility of traditional attitudes. To put it another way, when Vance deals with race, class, nationality, ethnicity, etc., in his writing, he handled the subjects realistically as opposed to ideologically. (A great many writers, especially science-fiction writers, do exactly the opposite, lacing their stories with hard-core politically-correct ideology at the expense of all realism. Much of their work is devoted to proving a point, which is a valid purpose, but which makes their writing less valuable than in might be.)

This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. This commenter has swallowed the SJW narrative whole, and can't imagine that a great writer like Vance could possibly be anything but a doctrinaire liberal,  because he's been told all his life that non-liberals are ignorant, evil, stupid, and barely, if at all, literate. In short, the poor fellow is a Peefer if he only knew it. To learn about Peefers you must read The Cadwal Chronicles.

But on the bright side, he is a fan of Vance, and if he reads him often enough and deeply enough, the Vancian sensibility is bound to rub off on him. One can't really read Wyst: Alastor 1716 without internalizing a healthy skepticism towards all schemes for attaining egalitarianism through socialism and government planning. And a reading of either The Cadwal Chronicles or The Gray Prince will cause one to rethink the historical eras of colonization and decolonization.

For a realistic, objective, warts-and-all description of the pure cussedness of humanity, it comes down to either Jack Vance or Shakespeare. No rainbows or unicorns there. Just dragons.
---------------
Quibcags: Number one is illustrated by a photo of Jack Vance, of course, and the second by a dancer I found on the net that suggests something Islamic. The third is illustrated by a picture I found by googling. And the last is illustrated by Amy, of Gargantia on the Verdurous Planet (翠星のガルガンティア Suisei no Garugantia), who has an anthropological air about her.

---------------
*Edward S. May is not related to one of the bloggers here, Rex F. May, BTW.

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Baron Bodissey on Islam

Those opposed to me in the sociopolitical world of course say lots of stupid things. It's to be expected. What is frustrating, though, is when my sociopolitical allies say stupid things. It's often understandable that they say them, but they're stupid nonetheless. This applies to many issues, but for now, let's talk about Muslims and immigration. Far too many of my allies who want Muslim immigration stopped say that it's because Muslims are crazy and/or evil. This is just silly. It's war propaganda of the demonize-the-enemy sort. I'm opposed to virtually all Muslim immigration. But it's not because I think Muslims are crazy (they're not, any more than anybody else is) or that they're evil (ditto). I oppose such immigration because Muslims are incompatible. Their faith and culture (they go together) essentially demand that they actively oppose many of the principles that are basic underpinnings of Western Culture. There's nothing new about this. Islam has opposed Christianity and Christendom since its birth.

And yes, I'm well aware that there are variations in Islamic culture, and that they differ widely from one another, from the baccha bazi (بچه بازی,)[link] hijinks in Afghanistan to the (usually) secular Turks to this, that and the other thing from the Philippines to Chechnya to Morocco.

Baron Bodissey clarifies it all, from Gates of Vienna [link]:

The Logicians of Sacred Atrocity

Friday, April 21, 2017

Libertarian Nationalism — Rockwell on von Mises

In case you missed it, I call myself a "libertarian nationalist," instead of just "libertarian" because the SJWs (liberals) seem to have taken over the Libertarian Party and most public expressions of libertarianism. Since nationalism is the sine qua non of libertarianism, or, indeed, any meaningful degree of freedom, those who reject nationalism are opposed to liberty, whether they think deeply enough to realize it or not.

One libertarian who does not reject nationalism is Lew Rockwell, and here [link] he writes about Ludwig von Mises, another libertarian who also didn't reject it:

Mises on Open Borders

Joe Salerno’s brilliant and comprehensive article, “Mises on Nationalism, the Right to Self-Determination, and the Problem of Immigration” shows that Mises rejected the extreme anti-nationalist, open borders position.
As Salerno shows, Mises supported “liberal nationalism,” one of the most important political movements of the 19th century. For him, the choices of individuals were bedrock.   People belonging to a single language community did not want to be ruled by those who spoke a different language. They wanted to form nations in which they could govern themselves.
As Mises said, “[T]he nationality principle includes only the rejection of every overlordship; it demands self-determination, autonomy. Then, however, its content expands; not only freedom but also unity is the watchword. But the desire for national unity, too, is above all thoroughly peaceful. . . . [N]ationalism does not clash with cosmopolitanism, for the unified nation does not want discord with neighboring peoples, but peace and friendship.”
Why did people want self-rule? Otherwise, they would be dominated by those who spoke another language. They would be like colonial people ruled by an oppressive empire. Because the ruling class spoke another language, minority groups were doomed to be outsiders looking in.
Read the rest here:
------------
Quibcag: Illustrated by Nyotalia mascots for some of the more prominent nations from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア).