Alt Left: The Alt Left Position on Religion with an Emphasis on Christianity

One wonders why I put Alt Left in front of this post. I originally did not want to, as many of my posts have nothing to do with Alt Left ideology. In particular, I do not think the Alt Left should be religious or get involved in scriptural or doctrinal arguments. We are too secular at our core for that. What we are is believer-friendly!

However, as I thought about it, there’s a way to sneak this in. More on that below.

First of all, the Alt Left is probably the only section of the Left that is not objectively hostile to not just religion in general but Christianity in particular. The American Left has always been extremely hostile to Christianity, silent (to their discredit) about Judaism, one of the primitive forms of ethno-religious barbarism known to man, and lately, openly celebratory about Islam, probably the most backwards and reactionary religion on Earth. The US Left has been anti-White for a long time. The religion of the US Whites is Christianity, hence US Christianity is tainted by the sins of the fathers. Not to mention that American Christianity has never been anything close to a theology of liberation; instead it has been a backwards theology of reaction more akin to Judaism than Chrisitianity than Judaism from Day One. But that’s not why the Left hates it. The Left, frankly, hates America. America in its only proper sense means White America. Anything else is fraudulent in a historical if not sociopolitical sense. As America = Whites, the Left hates Whites. As Christianity is the religion of the of the American Whites, the Left hates Christianity, in particularly Protestantism. The Left is probably going to become more pro-Catholic as as a result of their valorization and reification of the recent Hispanic immigrants to the US.

If you are on the Left and religious, come join the Alt Left! I’d love to have a religious Alt Left faction. We have a particular fondness for Christianity because the Alt Left was founded in the US. But we don’t privelege Protestantism above Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, especially as Protestantism in the Western Hemisphere has never been anything but reactionary.

Even more importantly, the Alt Left is the only faction on the Left that openly supports Whites, first of all, the Whites of the US but second of all, our White ancestors in the Old World. If you’re on the Left and you either love Whites or love being White, come join us in the Alt Left! We are the only Left faction that does not hate Whites!

The Alt Left supports (Eastern Orthodox) Replacement Theology because that is part of the essential doctrine of the Palestinian Christians, whom we support to hilt. We also support the Russian Eastern Orthodox doctrine of the Russian ethnic Leftist rebels in the Donbass, whatever that might be called.

The Alt Left also (Catholic) Liberation Theology, which can be boiled down to “Jesus as a leftwing revolutionary guerrilla with an AK-47.”

See especially the “Catholic Marxists” Camilo Torres, the rebel-priest and original “priest with an AK-47) founder of the ELN in Colombia, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua (particularly the rebel poet-priest Ernesto Calderon), the FMLN in El Salvador (particularly Archbishop Romero), an Irish priest who led Honduras largest guerrilla group in the 1980’s whose name eludes me, Jean-Paul Aristide of Haiti, and believe it or not, the Maoist NPA in the Philippines, which has a lot of support among local Catholic priests in the villages.

Liberation  Theology is pure “Jesusism” or Catholicism. It emphasizes “the preferential option for the poor,” in other words, it is completely in accord with Jesus’ socioeconomic message.

In addition to that we should support Eastern Orthodox Replacement Theology as the proper liberation theology for the people of Palestine to take back their country from the violent usurpation of the Jews.

As  you can see, the two main religious strains we support are Liberation Theology, a Catholic doctrine, and Replacement Theology, an Eastern Orthodox doctrine.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

America’s (False) Honesty Fetish: A Product of Our Christian Heritage?

We’re all coping all the time. We cope our way through life, lying like fools the whole time, and not caring a whit. Success in life is based on deception, mostly to oneself but also to others.

I like the attitude of the Japanese towards this. If you tell a Japanese men, preferably one over 40, that you never lie, he will laugh right in your face, call you an idiot, and walk away. To the Japanese, nothing is dumber than pathological honestly.

I think America, or Gentile America anyway (not so sure about (((America)))) seems to have a huge honestly fetish. I tell this vignette to Americans all the time, and all I get is cope. I also tell Americans that you have to lie sometimes in life. After that, I get a load more of cope. Usually of the “I cannot tell a lie” bullshit, which is obviously itself a lie. To lie is human. To be pathologically honest, I think one might have to be an actual computer. Sure a computer could be programmed to never lie. The thing’s as dumb as a rock. It only knows whatever we told it. It can’t know anything else.

Of course we could discuss Kant’s Categorical Imperative, but that’s more of a thought exercise than an actual possibility in life.

I think America’s pathological honestly fetish, which probably isn’t even as real as it claims to be because most if not all who claim to be pathologically honest are lying right there, must be down to our Christian heritage. Not Judeo-Christian heritage.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Notion of “Judeo-Christianity” Is Probably a Fraud

Who the Hell stuck that Judeo- in front of my great Christian religion anyway? Not trying to diss on Judaism here, but face it, it’s not much like Christianity even if one was birthed from the other, and Christianity at its absolutely core is nothing but Reform Judaism, sort of the ultimate in Reform Judaism, so reformed it’s barely even or not at all Jewish anymore.

People argue that Christianity is the Old Testament too, but that’s another feint because if you understand Christianity, you realize that when Jesus came, he replaced Judaism and the Old Testament at the same time. Jesus freed us from the Law. We no longer had to live under the Law. Hence, the Old Testament was essentially null and void, good as a historical document but for little else. Even the Old Testament and New Testament Gods are completely different. This is of course known as Replacement Theology.

(((Some people))) like to go on about how Replacement Theology is antisemitic doctrine, but the more you think about it, the more obvious it is that Christianity itself is Replacement Theology, so if the latter is antisemitic then the Christian religion itself is antisemitic. Which is what a lot of (((folks))) say anyway. Briefly, Jesus came, the Old Testament and the Law were replacement by the New Testament and what can only be called Mercy. At the same time, the Jewish birthright to Israel was cancelled, as the (Christian) Church was the new Israel.

The Catholics seem to understand this best of all. I attended Catholic Mass for a while when I lived in this new town. All of the lessons were about the New Testament. They never talked about anything else. If I had to describe Catholicism, I would call it “Jesusism” or “New Testamentism.” It’s the Protestants who regress to the Old Testament which doesn’t make much sense as they were supposed to be the reformers.

On the other hand, they were also back to the basics, and I suppose if you go back far enough, the Old Testament was important to the early Christians, especially since for the first 100 years, Christianity was little more than a very odd Jewish sect. In fact, one of the major religious debates of the time was whether a non-Jew could even be a Christian. For decades, one had to be a Jew in order to become a Christian in the first place. So in that sense perhaps Protestantism is like Sunnism, another back to the basics doctrine though not necessarily born of an Islamic reform movement against a staid and corrupt Islam.

On the other hand, Shia Islam always struck me as more like Catholicism, with the rule of the mullahs (the Pope and the Vatican) whose job it is to continuously reinterpret Islam to keep it updated to the current era. Which is exactly what Catholicism does and is also why the only true Christian fundamentalism is always Protestant as much as Catholic-hating Protestants love to holler that this is wrong. It’s hard to imagine what a Catholic fundamentalism would look like. Sure there are the orders and the pre-Vatican II (1964) Catholics, but even Vatican I was quite an advance. Show me any Catholics who want to go back to 60 AD. None do other than the Eastern Orthodox and they’re not so much fundamentalists as people who are practicing an ancient but rather progressive religion.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Christianity Seems to Proscribe Lying, but Judaism Seems to Permit It Guiltlessly

What I’m saying here is that Christian cultures seem to think that lying is a terrible sin and one should always or usually be honest.

In contrast, Hinduism says no such thing and in fact seems to venerate lying as a fine art or even a religious virtue.

The art of lying in Islam when there is a threat to the Muslims is well known.

Sects such as the Druze, the Yezidis, and the Alawi have long prescribed lying if doing so prevents harm to the believers. In general, those religions tend to pretend that they are Muslims. The Alawi actually are Muslims, but a lot of Sunnis don’t buy it. The Druze and Yezidis just say they’re Muslims so they don’t get killed. The Mandeans were much the same.

Of course if you read the Jewish books, this lying for self-preservation is endlessly repeated almost as if it were a ritual in its own right. Jews have always seemed to me to be much more prone to dishonestly than Christians. I’ve long thought that Judaism must allow them to lie with little guilt. If you read Jews Must Live!* (1936) about an Orthodox Jewish family, the entire family engages in such pervasive lying that it causes very serious problems to the point where they could hardly tell when someone was telling the truth or lying and the household is in chaos with much drama, hollering, arguing, fighting, and kvetching most of time.

The latter state simply describes the typical Jewish family. The pathological lying I’m not so sure about. In any case, when you are in a household where people lie so freely and loosely that you can hardly tell when someone is lying or telling the truth, you are truly in an Existential Hell, I would argue. But it’s not that different 2020 Late Capitalist USA, come to think of it, so maybe it’s more livable than I thought.

*Like most all books written by Jews that tell the truth about Jews, of course Jews really hate this book and insist that this man, who wrote a book in part about pathologically lying Jews, is, natch, a pathological liar himself! But you saw that one coming, didn’t you, dear readers?

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: An Analysis of the Armenian and Greek Genocides in Anatolia in 1915-1923: The Truth of the Events and Number of Victims

From 1915-1923, a few massacres were committed against the Christians of Anatolia. There were three genocides: an Armenian genocide, an Assyrian genocide, and a Greek genocide.

I just did a significant amount of research on the events and numbers around these events. I did it because Turks on the Internet were claiming that Armenians started the fighting by slaughtering Turks.

There were also posts from Turks talking how if things got bad in Turkey, Armenians and Greeks would start slaughtering Turks. I work in mental health, and this is clear and naked projection. They’re accusing Armenians and Greeks of doing to Turks everything the Turks did to the Armenians and Greeks. Most Turks on the Net absolutely hate Armenians and use the word “Armenian” to mean something like “the worst enemies of the Turkish people ever.”

So I did some basic research on the events. I was especially confused by the Turkish claims that these events started when  Armenians in Anatolia started massacring Turks, and Turks were just fighting back. Were they right? Of course I had always believed the Armenian side of the story, but what if they were wrong and the Turks were right? As I am extremely open-minded person (far more open-minded than most people), I had to find out.

First, the numbers. They’re wrong. Way off, all of them. The official figures run from 700,000 to 1.8 million. Simply by adding up all of the totals listed on Wikipedia, I got 2.5 million Armenian victims of the Turks in this period.

Now, I did include some massacres that occurred before the actual genocide because I felt that they were all part of some larger event, a slo-mo Armenian genocide that lasted from 1880-1923. I believe there was a slaughter of 300,000 in the 1880’s amidst similar Turkish recriminations as I outlined above: “The Armenians were killing our people, so we had to fight back.” And possibly another with 25,000 number of victims around 1908. And the killings absolutely extended to into the 1920’s until 1923.

I had previously thought that there were 40,000 Turkish civilians killed by Armenians in retaliation, but now I cannot find that data. What I did find what that Russian Cossaks killed 45,000 Turkish civilians in a Turkish river valley in 1916.

2.5 million Armenian civilians killed by Turks (as aggression).

0? Turkish civilians killed by Armenians (as retaliation).

I also checked on the Turkish claim that Armenians started it. No, they didn’t. Incidentally, it seems like most of the genocide occurred in maybe a couple of years – 1915-1916. The rest of the years were more like window dressing.

The Turks claimed that Armenians killed Turkish soldiers when Russia invaded Turkey in the east in 1914. This is correct. There were quite a few Armenians in that force. These were Armenian volunteer battalions that also included Assyrians and Greeks. They numbered 40,000.

They had been treated terribly by the Ottomans over centuries of land, food, and business theft, beatings, jailings, tortures, murders, pogroms, and massacres. So these were Christians living in Russia who were out for some paybacks due to Ottoman crimes. I had previously thought that Turkish civilians were killed in this battle, but now I can’t find any data.

This was during a battle in late 1914 in which the Turks were beaten badly by a Russian invading force in the East. The Turks blamed the Armenians for their loss in the battle, but the real cause was that the Turks fought the battle very poorly, and the Russians fought it in a much smarter way. It was a fair fight.

The loss of this battle was humiliating for the Turks, and they quickly accused Armenians in Anatolia of stabbing them in the back and causing their defeat.

This is exactly  what Hitler said about Jews that set off the Holocaust – that German Jews had stabbed Germany in the back, causing it to lose the war. It wasn’t true and neither was the Turkish claim, but it worked. Turks quickly demonized Armenians and other Christians in Turkey and scapegoated them. Which is once again exactly what the Nazis did to Jews.

The Turks used the paranoia set off by this event to set off the genocide of the Armenians (and Assyrians and Greeks) in Anatolia on the grounds that they were some sort of infidel 5th Column in wartime and hence were dangerous traitors. There’s not a lot of evidence that this was true.

These massacres were committed by the Russian Army, not the Armenians of Turkey, and neither is there evidence that the Armenians sympathized with the invaders. Interestingly, around this time, many Turkish Armenians became patriots and either joined or tried to join the Turkish Army to fight the invaders. This is left out of many accounts.

I also looked into the Greek genocide and got a figure of 715,000, larger than most estimates. Greek retaliation killings were only 15,000, and all occurred years after the initial slaughter of the Greeks.

715,000 Greeks killed by Turks (as aggression).

15,000 Turkish civilians killed by Greeks (in retaliation).

Which number is bigger? Which represents the much larger crime?

I haven’t gotten to the Assyrian genocide yet, figures of which seem to be between the Greek and Armenian numbers.

Maybe in an upcoming post

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Conservatism (Neoliberalism) Tends Towards Fascism Almost as a Mathematical Law of Political Science

Conservatism tends to always dissolve into fascism. Show me anywhere on Earth where conservatism, especially conservative, neoliberal economics has been sustainable? It’s not. If it were sustainable it would not have to go fascist but neoliberalism and its monstrous 3rd World cousin is never sustainable? Why? Because despite conservative lies, neoliberalism is generally shit for the lower 80% of the population. Under neoliberalism, the top 20% get richer, usually a lot richer and the bottom 80% lose money. And this setup never changes.

Neoliberalism always causes a crisis or a crash sooner of later (see the 2008 Crash, caused 100% by neoliberalism). It was in fact a Neoliberal Crash, like most economic crashes. This 2020 Crash in the US has been caused by the Coronavirus, but US neoliberalism has made it so much worse.

Furthermore, since neoliberalism is without fail horrible for the bottom 80% of the population by its nature, it always engenders a Left backlash.

Except in places that have already had some sort of a revolution and social contract has been reached, neoliberalism will often put up a huge fight against any threat from the Left at all. The less the regime tolerates the Left, the more radical and extreme the Left gets because extreme conservatism tends to cause extreme Leftism via a law of nature, sort of like a scale that must be balanced or better yet, the Balance of Nature itself.

Pretty soon you’ve got Latin America or even Southern Europe, where the Left is socialist or Communist and the Right is fascist, with little in between. This tends to be the case especially in Catholic countries because Catholic countries tend towards collectivism and tend to despise individualism, which is itself only a product of Protestantism. See Weber on that. He’s immaculate.

In  a collectivist society, all political movements are collectivist. Left collectivism is always socialism or Communism. Right collectivism is always fascism. So in these Catholic societies you tend to end up with Socialists/Communists versus Fascists, in other words, a chronically violent tinderbox in which both Left and Right will tend to get more authoritarian because that’s the only option left to you in a place like that.

Democracy’s not sustainable in an environment like that. In a place like that, democracy just means a lot of unrest, often violent, and eventually the overthrow, violent or otherwise, of your government, lawfully elected or not. Most governments don’t want to get violently overthrown, so in order not to do so, they have to become less democratic.

Fascism is properly seen as a rightwing revolutionary movement of capitalism that rises due to a threat from the Left. Fascism is a palingenetic popular dictatorship against the Left. Therefore, there cannot be any Left fascism. If it’s on the Left, it’s not fascism. Period. And fascism, being a popular dictatorship against the Left, is necessarily not particularly socialist or great for workers. Why would it be? Why would a popular dictatorship against the Left institute leftwing policies?

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Teenage Boy Bullshit: The Fake Catholic Priest Pedophile/Child Molesting Epidemic

In short, it never even happened! There were no priests molesting kids*. There was no “kidfucking*.” There was no “child rape.” There were no pedophile priests*. There were not priest child molesters*.

*To be fair, 5% of the cases did involve actual child molesting. And a few of the priests, surely less than 5%, were pedophiles.

We are now in the midst of an idiotic mass hysteria and moral panic about the sexuality of teenage girls. I call it the Teenage Girl Bullshit. In contrast, in the cases of the fake pedophile priests, we are dealing with what I call the Teenage Boy Bullshit.

As noted above, there was either no child molesting or only very little. 95% of it was straight statutory rape, or as I prefer, illegal intercourse.

Kidfucking or child molestation: sex with children under 13.

Statutory rape or illegal intercourse: sex with teenagers 13-Age of Consent.

As it turns out the illegal intercourse in the case of the priest scandal was a particularly ugly kind because it was creepy and coercive. It had to be creepy and coercive because almost of the boys were straight boys seduced into gay sex. In general, straight teenage boys do not want to have gay sex, and thank God for that! Thank you very much, teenage boys! However, they can be manipulated into gay sex via creepy and coercive means.

There’s a problem here: Being seduced into gay sex can be very traumatic for a teenage straight boy and it may indeed cause problems extending into adulthood. Not because a straight teenage boy had sex (God forbid!) as the hysterics say. Instead it was because the sex was gay sex and not straight sex.

If the boys were gay, this scandal would not even exist. No one except the sex hysterics would give a damn because a majority of gay teenage boys are either fucking adult men already or they want to. Most if not all gay men who had sex with adult men when they were teenage boys look back on the experience with fond nostalgia.

Also there was no “kid rape.” There was illegal intercourse and child molestation. Statutory rape per se isn’t really rape. It’s really illegal intercourse. Child molesting per se isn’t rape either. Child molesting and child rape are two completely different things and the latter is a lot worse and more dangerous than the former.

As it is, it doesn’t look like anyone forced anyone to do anything. Rape is forced sex. As my mother pounded into my head a million times as a teenage boy and young man, rape involves force or the threat of force.

I have no idea of the sexual orientation of the boys. Most I heard of were straight. I have no idea if some were gay. I’m quite certain that any gay ones weren’t the ones complaining because gay boys never complain about consensual sex with adult men. They always say they like it.

But most of the sex in this scandal was bad it involved straight boys and not gay boys. The straight boys were tricked into gay sex and this is often bad for their psychological development.

Of course the 5% of cases involving little boys getting molested was very bad. I certainly don’t approve of adult men molesting little boy-children. I don’t know how harmful it is, but I doubt if it’s a good thing. It’s certainly bad for little girls under 13 to get molested by adults, and in quite a few cases the harm lasts into adulthood.

Probably none of the complaints involved gay boys.

The question was posed to me, Would I care if any of those boys the priests had sex with were gay? Of course I wouldn’t care! Other than possibly an abuse of a power dynamic and something a priest should not be doing as part of his job description, it’d be fine with me, and I’m sure it would be fine with the boys too! It’s not rape if they love it. Gay boys almost universally love their teen-adult sex, so I don’t understand what the problem is.*

*They like it if it’s consensual. There was some #metooing of gay men in the movie business by gay teenage boys, but that’s because those men were rapey and coercive towards teenage gay boys, not because they had sex. In a number of cases, those boys were actually raped. On the other hand, some of those gay boys #metooing those Hollywood adult men were teenage male prostitutes. I’m sorry they got coerced into rapey sex but they weren’t exactly paragons of moral value.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Libertarian Topics It’s Ok to Discuss On Here

If you want to talk about Libertarians on metoo, custody courts, affirmative action, and reparations, ok.

These are all areas of government (and corporate) overreach. I would particularly like to see critiques of the carceral system and carceral state, everybody calling the cops for every little problem, and the fact that about half of the things we want to do in life are now actually or effectively illegal. Every year I look at the new laws, and more things I have been doing my whole life are illegal.

Look at speech codes and hate speech codes. Every week I wake up and another word I’ve been using my whole life is banned. Every other sentence is now some sort of bigotry, offense, or insult needing an apology else your career is over.

It’s not the state that’s doing this. It’s our Sanctimonious Nanny State (a word I hate) Culture or Nanny State Culture that’s firing all these guys. Our culture is now run by Church Ladies (Church Lady Culture) and Stern Nuns with Rulers. No fun allowed! Fun is bigotry! Fun is hate! If you’re having fun, you must be hating, preying up, exploiting or hurting some poor vulnerable soul.

How about the increasingly Puritan Left, Comstock Left, Victorian  Left, or Sex-hating Left. Of course all of this is coming right out  of Sex-Negative Feminism. I came out of the revolutions of the 1960’s. One of our mottoes was, “Do it in the streets!” So my whole life, I’ve been a Do it in the streets type guy. A Hugh Hefner liberal.

The Left is now as sex-hating as the Christian Right. Hell, the only sex-positive politics these days is on the Right! Pathetic! I didn’t sign up for this shit, this prudery. The Left is now championing everything we were opposed and fought against.

The whole carceral state (Mommy Cop) is out of control. I want to see it reigned in. Probably half of our laws should be flushed down the toilet. People can pretty easily solve most of their problems themselves without getting Mommy Cop (the Police State).

Any problem nowadays, snowflakes go yelling for Mommy Cop to come rescue them. “Mommy Cop! He hurt me! He called me a name!” Mommy Cop whips out her ticket book and writes a ticket for yet another of a growing list of citation offenses.

If you want to talk any of these things, go for it:

    • Our invasion of privacy or the fact that we have no privacy at all anymore.
    • #metoo, sexual assault and raaaaaaaaape bullshit.
    • The travesty of custody courts.
    • Affirmative action.
    • Reparations.
    • The carceral system or carceral state (Mommy
      Cop).
    • Legal reform, eliminating many stupid, intrusive, anti-freedom, and sanctimonious laws about personal behavior.
    • The fact that people can probably solve a lot of issues now dealt with by Mommy Cop amongst themselves without crying for Mommy Cop.
    • Hate speech and speech codes.
    • Cancel Culture or the Left’s war on free speech and increasingly even free thought.
    • Various sanctimonious party-pooper, no fun, turd in the punchbowl modern Left cultures that could be called such things as Nanny State Culture, Church Lady Culture, or Nuns with Rulers Culture, in other words the punitive aspects of the Cultural Left.
    • The prudish, anti-sex Left cultures variously described the Puritan Left, Comstock Left, Victorian Left, or Sex-hating Left. Also Sex-Negative Feminism.
    • Anti-freedom, Carceral State Feminism.
    • Pedophile Mass Hysteria, the insane abuse of age of consent and statutory rape laws, and the moral panic around the sexuality of teenage girls.
    • The increasing infantilization of society where childhood is dragged out to the day before the 18th birthday and beyond.
    • Females demanding to be permanent infants when it benefits them and then permanent adults when that benefits them.
    • The notion that females are Forever Children who lack agency their entire lives.

Libertarians have excellent views on all this, which is really civil libertarianism. I am a civil libertarian, as in an ACLU-type liberal. Libertarians are with the old ACLU on civil liberties.

The ACLU is now a cucked, fagged-out Cultural Left Shitshow characterized by dishonest legal theory and the abandonment of (male) reason and logic in favor of (female) emotion and bias when it comes to legal matters. But the old ACLU was great, and the Libertarians line right up with the old liberal civil libertarians. So that’s a great commonality with Libertarians that we can talk about.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Modern Jewish Nation Is Murderous and Genocidal, But So Are Many Nations, Especially the US

Jews are not monstrous genocidal maniacs on the level of the Nazis, though the genocidal Jewish monsters in Israel surely give Nazis a run for their money. It’s all pretty sad. Innocent Jewish people get murdered by genocidal Master Race supremacist racist maniacs. So what do Jews do in response? Turn into genocidal Master Race supremacist racist murdering maniacs. Sure the Nazis killed a lot more and did it in a more up close and personal manner. But Jews are genocidal too.

Jews declared war on the Iraqi People in 2003 and used Jewish control over the US state to attack and destroy Iraq for no reason at all other than the state being hostile to Jews. The UK helped. As a result, 1.4 Arab Iraqis were killed, basically slaughtered by Jews and their American and British allies.

Next, the Jews along with their US, Turkish, Saudi, British, French, UAE, Saudi, and NATO allies launched a war on the Syrian people using Al Qaeda and similar terrorists to destroy the country and massacre its people. 500,000 people died. Jews are partly responsible for the deaths of those 500,000 people.

Prior to that, the Jews along with the US and the UK imposed a no fly zone on Iraq. The purpose of this was to exterminate the Iraqi people via terror disease plagues by not allowing their to treat their waste water. This caused Iraqis to drink contaminated war, causing the death of 500,000 Iraqi children. The Jews absolutely helped slaughter those kids.

The Jews assisted the US, British, Saudi, UAE, Sudanese, and Egyptian war on the people of Yemen. The war has had genocidal overtones as the aggressors, including the US attempted to starve the Yemeni people into defeat. In Iraq, the Jews, the US, and the UK tried to exterminate people with plagues.

In Yemen, the same people tried to exterminate people with a error famine. Deliberate terror famines caused by the Saudis and their allies in addition to a scorched Earth campaign against the Yemeni people and their civilian infrastructure killed at least 200,000 Yemenis.

First plagues, then famines. The Americans and the Jews are almost Biblical in the ways they go about exterminating their enemies. What’s next? Locusts?

All told, the Jews have their hands in the murder of 2.1 million of their racial enemies, the Arabian people. The conclusion is inescapable:

Modern Jews are killers.

The Jews are not alone in their murderous and genocidal behavior. The US, UK, NATO, Turks, Saudis, UAE, Qatar, Sudanese, and Egyptians are also murderous genociders.

Of these the worst by far are the Americans and the British, particularly the former, with direct hands in the deaths of 2.1 million Arabian people. The British mostly stood on the sidelines and cheered the US on. The Saudis and UAE are next. They have the blood of 700,000 Arabian people on their hands all because of their genocidal hatred of the Shia Muslims.

Next are the French and Turks, with the blood of 500,000 Arabs on their hands. The Turks because of their genocidal hate of the Shia Muslims, and the French because they are American suck-ups and sidekicks and in particular strong allies of the genocidal Jews.

Check out President Macron of France, who was placed directly into office by the notorious family of Jewish monsters in the UK, the Rothschilds. Macron is essentially working for Lord Rothschild. There’s no other way to put it.

The Egyptians and Sudanese had a role in 200,000 deaths. The only reason for their role in the killing is their murderous hatred of the Shia Muslims.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Zionism Has Turned Some of the Best People into Some of the Worst People, and This Is Sad

I would like to point out that outside the Zionist political formation and state in Israel, the Jews are not responsible for many if any deaths. They’re hardly killers, and much less murderous genociders.

This is what their involvement with Zionism has done to the Jews: it has turned this relatively pacific people into murderous and genocidal maniacs.

Jews peaceful? Sure. Look at the quiet dignity and altruistic, even self-sacrificing manner in which the Jews went to their deaths in World War 2. The Holocausted Jews are close to the definition of “pure victims,” who did little if anything wrong to justify their persecution and extermination.

I am not commending the way that the Jews went to their deaths. They were mostly blindsided. There were armed Jewish resistance groups, mostly in Poland, Belarus, and the Ukraine. Jews were probably members of most of the anti-Nazi resistance groups in Europe.

The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto waged a hopeless if supremely noble act of resistance. But there was an air of supreme self-sacrifice or pure victimhood in this battle too. These Jews in Warsaw knew they were headed to their deaths but decided to go down fighting rather than be taken peacefully. This is among the most noble ways a man can die.

Of course I would have preferred if the Jews fought back more, but as I said, they were mostly blindsided. The non-Jews in the Nazi-conquered areas didn’t fight back much more than Jews. The Nazis quickly overran all of these countries and were in control almost before any resistance could appear. They ruled with iron control.

I am not “blaming Jews” for going placidly to their deaths like sheep either. If the 70 years since the establishment of Israel has shown us anything, it is that Jews are definitely fighters and are quite capable of killing their enemies to survive.

I am only saying that the way in which they solemnly marched to their deaths approaches “pure innocence,” oddly enough a Christian trait. The Jews who did this were nearly saintly in their ultimate self-sacrifice, especially the doomed fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto, who should be  revered as some of the finest of men .

I am sure many Jews will object to being compared with their worst enemies, the Christians. Fine, this is how they are. Let them rage on. This is their nature – to see faults and enemies everywhere every time a non-Jews breaches the subject of the Jews. Jews are nothing if not paranoid. That it’s understandable doesn’t mean it’s not disordered.

However, I would like to point out that there are extremely noble aspects to the Christian faith, and it’s a much more morally demanding religion than Judaism, acknowledged by Jews themselves in their many jokes about Christians being goody-goods, fools, suckers and knaves who act so good that they harm themselves. But even there, we see the ultimate self-sacrifice embedded in the Christian religion.

I don’t care what Jews say. The Christian notions of ultimate self-sacrifice, pure innocence, and the saintliness that ensues is one of the crowning moral achievements of the human race. Everyone knows Christians are too good for their own good. That’s as clear as air. But it’s also paradoxically the entire rationale for the religion in the first place. As the Jewish convert Saint Simone Weil* noted, it’s pretty easy to be a Jew, but its awful hard to be a Christian.

Christianity is one of the most morally demanding religions, and this is its Achilles Heel. Most humans are simply not good enough to be good Christians. People don’t want to be that good. They want to be a bit bad instead. But a religion that demands the ultimate in self-sacrificing morality can hardly be faulted. Someone who is too good for his own good is still a very, very good person, let’s face it.

What I am saying here is that a lot of the behavior of the Jews during the Holocaust resembles saintliness, a moral pinnacle for human behavior. Yes, many of them died. But they died by being some of the finest people on Earth.

And here is the saddest thing about Zionism. Zionism has turned Jews into their worst enemies in the name of survival. It turned some of the finest people on Earth in terms of pure saintliness into murderers and genociders. And this is a very sad thing.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: How About Voluntary Gay and Lesbian High Schools for Gay and Lesbian Teens?

Oli S: It’s interesting how often they make claims about pederasty/pedophilia from two angles. First they claim that gay people are more likely to be ‘molested’ into homosexuality and next that homosexuals themselves are more likely to engage in relationships with young people.

The critical flaw is that all the research on this shows higher rates, but it’s quite clearly attributed to the fact that gay teenagers don’t have many options their own age. They don’t want to risk being outed to their peers, so they turn to the Internet to find a sexual experience where they can be targeted by a predator.

Oli is apparently a new commenter here.

I have no idea his orientation and it’s probably not important, but how readers would feel about voluntary separate gay and lesbian high schools? They would not have to worry about peer pressure and being outed. You could even staff Administration ion with mostly gay and lesbian administrators and the teaching staff with gay and lesbian teachers, of which there are no shortages, trust me as I spent years working in the field.

Gay and lesbian teens could no longer complain about lack of sex partners and having to resort to sex with adults, particularly in the case of the boys.

However, I can see the sex scandals starting already.The gay teachers and admins will not keep their hands off the gay boys and girls. So this is the huge roadblock in favor of this plan.

They call me a homophobe. Fine. Now what sort of homophobe would support the idea of separate gay/lesbian schools – voluntary of course – to protect, nurture, and grow healthier gay and lesbian teens who hopefully transit into healthier gay and lesbian adults, which is something I very much support?

Because God knows the GLBT community definitely needs a dose of mental health. Gays and lesbians in general in the US and worldwide are not particularly mentally healthy. This does translate into societal problems, possibly feeding disease epidemics.

The suicide rate for gay and lesbian teens is not elevated, but the rate for adult gays and lesbians is off the charts. Up to 1/3 of suicides in some younger decadal cohorts (such as 30’s and 40’s) occur in gays and lesbians.

Only 2% of gay men are over 65. The % for straight men much be much higher. Where did all the rest of the elderly gays go? They never showed up at the Elderly Gate for check-in because they were already dead.

Gay men and lesbians see their lifespans shortened by an incredible 20 years. I don’t think being homosexual per se is a death cult, but the gay and lesbian lifestyle (especially the former) sure seems that way. Heck, it’s more of a deathstyle than a lifestyle.

The anti-gay Religious Right is actually correct in a lot of the charges they make about homosexuality. The critique is largely fact-based. The problem with these folks is not that they lie about gays and lesbians because for the most part they tell the sorry truth.

The problem instead is that they are haters. I agree with most of the charges the social conservatives level against homosexuality, but I don’t hate gays and lesbians because of it. That’s a choice the Religious Right makes, and yeah, they do hate gays and lesbians for the most part, though if a gay or lesbian gets into one of their fake conversion programs, no doubt Religious Right folks might be very kind to them. Love the sinner, hate the sin, and all that.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Repost: Are Iranians White?

Original piece with 800 comments (!) here.

It’s certainly a reasonable question, as White nationalists in general answer a resounding “No!” to that question. But even they are funny. Stormfront threw out 300 Armenians on the grounds that they were non-White. However, this decision was very controversial, and after a while, the Armenians were quietly let back in.

They have a Pan-Europeanist policy, which is one of the few noble things about that site.

Recently there were a lot of Iranians on the site, and though I believe Stormfront does officially state that Iranians are not White, there has been a quiet hands-off “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about them, and the Stormfronters quietly let the Iranians stay in what boils down to an open secret. In other words, Stormfront officially states that Iranians are not White, but unofficially, they turn a blind eye to Iranians joining and even organizing themselves on the site.

Iranians are funny people. In 1978, I drove an ice cream truck for a living. There were a bunch of Iranians were who driving trucks too. We were all sort of budding capitalists. You lease the truck every day, buy your ice cream, mark it up, and hope for the best. A lot of us supplemented our incomes by selling dope, including me.

The Iranians were very good at this, selling joints for $1 each mostly to the many Mexicans in the parks of Santa Ana (Santa Ana was a heavily Mexican city even 30 years ago).

Once at the end of the day (we lined up at the end of the day to have our coins rolled and get our payout in easy cash) I asked them if they were Arabs. They were adamant. “We are not Arabs!” Later I learned that they don’t like Arabs much. It’s a superior versus inferior thing. The Iranians think they are better and that the Arabs are inferior, a bunch of animals.

At worst, Iranian nationalists call them “lizard-eating Mohammadens.” Image is heathen Arab Muslims charging out of the deserts of Arabia to destroy the great and proud Iranian culture. And it’s true that the Muslims did devastate Iranian culture, but they did this to all non-Muslim cultures they encountered. After all they were Jahiliyyah or grounded in ignorance.

The modern Islamic state has reinstated this view, downplaying traditional Iranian culture, making Arabic practically a 2nd official language, etc., all of this infuriating Iranian nationalists.

The real hardcore Iranian nationalists often abandon Islam altogether and claim to be Zoroastrians, the true ancient religion of Iran.

Iranian nationalists are interesting people.

Iranian nationalists hate Arabs, so you might think they like Jews, but they hate Jews about as much as they hate Arabs. They especially hate Israel. “Marg bar Israel!” is a common cry on Iranian forms (“Death to Israel!”) And the guys yelling this stuff were older professional guys in their 40’s with young kids, secular, and while respectful of Islam, not very religious.

Why the hatred of Israel? Probably, if you are an Iranian nationalist, even a secular one, Israel is seen as your mortal enemy. That’s a logical assumption.

The harder-core Iranian nationalists also dislike Pan-Turkic types, since the Turanian lunatics usually claim some or all of Iran.

The saner Iranian nationalists hate not Arabs but Arab nationalism. Arab nationalism is funny. It’s Leftist, secular, supposedly anti-racist, but they are bristling with hatred for Iranians. Saddam Hussein’s Arab nationalist uncle, who profoundly effected his views, wrote a famous tract, somewhat humorously titled, Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Jews, Persians and Flies.

The hatred of Arabs towards Persians is similar to that of Gentiles towards Jews or Blacks towards Whites: resentment against a group that thinks they are superior. A common claim, similar to anti-Semitism, among Whites is, “The Iranians are trying to dominate the Arab World!” It’s true that the Iranians opposed Arab nationalism, but who could blame them? The Pan-Arabists were a bunch of anti-Iranian racist shits.

What’s funny about this is that there are Iranian genes running all through the Arabs of the Levant, Mesopotamia and Arabia. It is particularly the case with the Mesopotamian Arabs. The Arab Shia in Southern Iraq have a lot of Iranian blood. One of the reasons Saddam persecuted them so harshly is he thought that they were Iranian fifth columnists. In general, it wasn’t really true, but there was reason to be concerned.

In recent years, as Iran and its Shia allies have turned into the greatest defenders of the Palestinians, the Arab nationalists are in a tough spot. They hate Iran, but how can they deny that Iran is the best defender of the Palestinians in the pitiful and sold-out Arab and Muslim world? There are particular conflicts with Hamas, a Sunni fundamentalist group which is strangely also pro-Iran, and Hezbollah, whose defense of the Palestinians puts the Sunni Arabs to shame.

These realities have forced the Sunnis into all sorts of cognitive dissonance that as usual does not make much sense.

I’ve known a few Iranians. They definitely look like White people. Their skin is often very pale White, especially the females (Why is that?). Some charts strangely enough put them right next to British, Danes and Norwegians genetically. No one knows what to make of it, but we were all together in Southern Russia 4,500 years ago. Some of us took off south to Iran, and others went into Europeans to constitute the modern Europeans. We are born of the same modern roots.

I’ve asked a few Iranians, “You’re White like us, right?” You might think they would get pissed, but they usually give an instant yes or break into a huge smile. They clearly consider themselves “Europeans outside or Europe.” One even told me explicitly that.

Scientifically, it’s an reasonable assumption.

Genetically, Iranians probably have little if any Black in them. Your average German has more Black in them than an Iranian. They do have some Asiatic genes, but probably not many.

The Iranians are actually an interesting link to populations further east. There is a close link between Italians and Iranians (Italians are probably the closest Europeans to Iranians) and then there is another close link between Iranians and Indians, especially North Indians.

So the linkage goes like this (all groups separated by only one arrow are closely linked, but groups separated by more than one arrow are not so close):

Core Europeans -> Italians -> Iranians -> North Indians

So, neither core Europeans nor Italians are all that close to North Indians per se, they can become closer to them through this linkage process.

Iranian genes are common in the region, even outside of Arabia. Many Afghans have Iranian blood and it’s quite common in Pakistanis too. There is a lot of Iranian blood in the Caucasus. Most of your Chechen, Dagestani, Ingush, etc. types seem to derive from some sort of Iranian-Turkish mix. The Ossetians are actually a transplanted Iranian group living in Russia and speaking a language related to Iranian.

There is Iranian blood running through the Stans – Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. It’s probably most prominent in Tajikistan.

Persians are only 51% or Iran. Most would be surprised to learn that. The rest are Kurds, Azeris (27%), Arabs, Lurs, Mazandaris, Qashqai, Balochis, Gilakis, Turkmen and Talysh. There are also smaller groups such as Assyrians, Armenians, Georgians, Kazakhs, Chechens and Jews.

The Kurds and Balochis have serious separatist tendencies. The Arabs (Ahvaz) just fight for more rights as an oppressed minority. Azeri separatism has not really gone anywhere, since the Azeris are actually a dominant minority in Iran! The Talysh have separatist tendencies, but in Azerbaijan, not in Iran.

I don’t support the separatism of the Balochis and Kurds in Iran as long as Iran is under imperialist assault, but if this were not the case, I would think they deserve the right to self-determination. Iran is correct to suppress Arab separatism and the desire to take Iran’s oil and gas wealth with them to a separate state.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Wikipedia, Ziopedia, Saffronpedia, or CIApedia?

Wikipedia Is Run by the CIA (among Other Groups)

Wikipedia (which I refer to as CIApedia), is now  partly run by the CIA (among other groups and states such as Israel and Hindu nationalists which also run their respective areas of interest to them) such as, still accuses Libya of the crime and says that the Iran theory is a crazy conspiracy theory. CIApedia has covered up all of the assassinations above, helped frame the patsies, and trashes the truth as “conspiracy theory.”

I know that the top levels of CIApedia administrators are completely infiltrated by pro-Israel Zionists and Indian Hindu nationalists. That’s been proven to me for nearly 15 years now.  I now believe that the US Deep State and the CIA have also seriously infiltrated these same upper levels of admins, although I admit that I can’t prove it. You know, Bellingcat types (Bellingcat is Deep State and CIA)

I swear every time I go to CIApedia to read about US foreign policy, it seems like that website is simply “the history of the world according to the CIA.” I think the CIA has infiltrated the leadership of CIApedia as noted above and has agents and assets who alter articles to promote whatever fake version of reality that the CIA is promoting in whichever US foreign policy event.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: It’s Possible to Be So Good That You are Bad!

The SJW’s are obnoxious and even wicked because they are too good. That’s the bitter truth. You can be so good that you are basically evil! Think of stern Puritans in New England, Dante staring down at every citizen as a sinner in 15th Century Florence, and even fundamentalist Muslims, the main problem of whom once again is that they are too good for the most part. Shariah Law expects you to be too good. That’s why it’s downright evil!

If some stern religious policeman is beating me up for looking at a woman or a radical feminist is firing me from my job for doing the same thing, in both cases I am being persecuted for acting like a human being and not being enough of a goody good choirboy. I’ma call the guy who is beating me up and the bitch who got me fired evil scum, sorry. Sanctimonious people who expect everyone to be saints are actually so good that they’re bad!

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Iranian PMU “Militias” Have Not Done Any of the Rocket Attacks on our Bases Tht We Have Accused Them And Iran of Doing

There was a rocket attack on the US base in Taji, Iraq the other day. 30 Katyusha rockets were fired at the base from a rocket launcher positioned in an abandoned pickup truck. 3 troops were killed,  2 Americans and 1 British, and 10 more were wounded, some badly. The US immediately blamed the PMU Division and Iran, specifically accusing the Kataib Hezbollah Battalion of the Iraqi Army for some reason, whom they have blamed before.

The Kataib Hezbollah Battalion is part of group of militias of the Iraqi Army called the PMU Division. These militias are now actual battalions and divisions of the Iraqi Army. The US stated “all intelligence points to Iran as being the source of the attack.” They also said that the attack was “beyond the capabilities of ISIS” and that only the PMU Division among the country’s armed insurgents and militias have the ability to carry out such an attack.

We will examine all of these claims below.

First of all, the PMU Division (Iraqi Army) didn’t do it. They already said they didn’t do it. They also said when we start attacking, we will announce it. This makes sense as the PMU Division generally claims all of its attacks. However, the Kataib Hezbollah Battalion of the Iraqi Army congratulated whoever did it. So what?

The previous attack on Kirkuk which Trump used to murder 30 members of the Iraqi Army and later Soleimani and Muhandis was proven to have been done by ISIS. The US lied and said Iran and the PMU Division did it. The Iraqi Army investigated and said it was an ISIS attack. The (((New York Times))) investigated and said the same thing. The (((Jew York Times))) has zero motivation to lie about this and they would love to blame Iran and the Shia militia Division.

Despite my name-calling here, I would like to commend the New York Times for not giving in to  (((ethnic chauvinism and lying))) and for telling the truth for once, even if the truth isn’t good for the Jews. Thank you, (((Mr. Shulzberger)))!

Journalistic integrity ought to come first and (((ethnic solidarity))) ideally ought to come last, but humans are emotional and that is why humans will always be a frequently irrational species – because emotions and facts go together like oil and water, and many truth-statements that people arrive at are derived by emotions, and  hence they are false.

This is very important to understand because most of us have views of the world that depend on seeing ourselves and fellow humans as rational beings, while the truth is that people are not very rational at all, and they are often quite irrational. The more emotional the subject is, the more irrational people will tend to act about it, and this includes determining what’s true and what’s false.

After we killed 30 of their men, the PMU Division then stormed embassy because…well…the US just murdered 30 of its men? Is that hard to understand? Of course they were mad.

I have a good source, a journalist, who is close to the Iranian and Iraqi governments as well as the IRGC, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Shia militias in Syria and Iraq. He stated that Iran had nothing to do with the embassy storming. It was a PMU Division decision to storm the embassy. Nevertheless Trump murdered Soleimani who had nothing to do with it and Muhandis, head of the PMU Division, who was only protesting the murder of 30 of his men. US lied and blamed Iran.

Next came many rocket attacks on US embassy, My source told me that the Shia militias didn’t do any of them as they wanted to give the US time to leave. The US nevertheless blamed the Shia militia division and Iran for all of these embassy attacks and other attacks on US bases. Neither the PMU Division nor Iran had anything  to do with any of them.

And note that the the rockets fired at embassy always came from Sunni parts of Baghdad. Why would the Shia PMU Division fire rockets from Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad who are utterly hostile to the PMU?

Now we have this latest attack on the base in Taji. The Kataib Hezbollah Battalion said they didn’t do it and asked whoever did it to take credit for it so the US would quit falsely blaming them. The PMU Division denied doing the Taji attack, and they claim all attacks. The US once again lied and blamed Iran and the PMU Division for the rockets and death of the US soldiers.

Keep in mind that the PMU Division is nothing but the Iraqi Army, a division of the army. They answer to Central Command in Baghdad, not to Iran. Iran doesn’t give orders to any of its allied militias. They get to do what they want within limits.

These rockets were launched from an area east of Taji called Rashidiyah. Tarmiyah is to the north. The entire area is made up of Sunni tribes who practice Sufism and were strong supporters and members of the former ruling Baath Party. The Sunni resistance against the US was here for years, and the US and Iraqi government never could clean them out. The original armed factions were made up of Sunni tribes with a strong adherence to the  Naqashbandi Sufi Order, the main Sufi order in Iraq.

After resistance died down, this area became an ISIS hotbed. In fact, ISIS weapons caches were found at the precise location that these rockets in this Taji attack were fired from. I have a hard time believing that Shia militias went to an utterly hostile pro-Baath Party Sunni neighborhood of former Sunni guerrillas and ISIS supporters and shot some rockets.

Nevertheless, we still no idea who did this attack. I would bet once again on Sunnis and/or ISIS. The US presented zero evidence for Iranian and PMU Division involvement. The Pentagon said the attack was beyond ISIS capabilities.

This is a complete lie because this was the exact same setup ISIS used in the earlier Kirkuk attack. ISIS also did an attack in Afghanistan three days using this setup, and ISIS used this setup endless times during the heavy fighting in Iraq several years ago. The US is lying that ISIS does not have this capability. Of course it does.

There is a good argument that Sunni groups and/or ISIS are doing all these rocket attacks. These Sunni folks utterly despise Iran and the Shia PMU Division.

They know that the US automatically blames Shia militias and Iran with every rocket attack no matter who shot the rockets. So they may shoot rockets at the US taking no credit for them (as that would spoil the trick) to frame the PMU Division and Iran for the attacks. If this is what is going on, it’s working great. Muhandis, Soleimani, and scores of Shia soldiers in the PMU have been killed by the US in retaliatory strikes for something  they didn’t even do.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Social Democracy Only Works in Homogeneous Societies Is Often but Not Completely True

RL:

The US and a handful of other countries are literally the only countries on this planet that regard social democracy with outrage and want nothing to do with it.

A commenter responds:

Mithridates: Yeah, I suspect much of this attitude stems from the ethnic divisions within the US that no one is ever allowed to talk about in any sort of frank or intellectually honest manner. Of course the Pluto/Mammon-worship inherent in the American mythos is a influential factor as well.

But let’s explore the first:

Basically, Ethnos A, the group responsible for most of the country’s productivity, is forced at gunpoint to redistribute a portion of their wealth to Ethnos B (and C in some regions), and a good portion of Ethnos B takes that money, pisses it away on all sorts of stupid instant gratification fuckery and doesn’t add much of anything to the country’s overall productivity; in fact, a sizable minority of Ethnos B behaves in public like zoo animals.

And then A’s gets called horrible bigots if they object to this, and especially if they object to being forced to live within shouting distance of B’s.

Most of the countries with working social democratic economic arrangements tend to have been ethnically homogeneous for most of the period when these systems were in place. And now these countries have tried the mass immigration experiment, and the same sort of shitty results is happening in those places that we here in the US have been experiencing for many decades now.

Natural Law says that humans are extra-clever social primates who are predisposed to be open to sharing among others they consider to be kin. There’s a certain other Ethnos I won’t mention by name or even a single-letter set of punctuation marks that exemplifies this principle very clearly.

Anyway, expecting all members of an Ethnos to consider the entire planet’s population of clever hominids to be a part of their kin group is quite an aberrant expectation; only weird ideologies can invert what to everyone else is a common sense understanding of Natural Law principles. And finally, loving one’s own kin does not necessarily mean hating other kin-groups.

Of course everyone has always known that this is the dirty little secret for Americans’ hostility to socialism. This is why all of the American White Nationalists are also hardline economic Rightists, Republicans and Libertarians despite this being bad for most Whites. Race trumps economics for a lot of folks. Whereas in Europe, most of the nationalist groups, even the White nationalists, are explicitly socialist.

You’d be pissed to, eh?

Actually I am fully aware of this argument, but I’m not pissed at all. For one thing, I have never been part of the wealthy White group, so Whites with money can go pound sand. They are my class enemies. I think in terms of economics. Screw race. Do the rich Whites want to help the poorer Whites? Of course not. So why should I support them. Also I know quite a few low-income Whites who use those redistributive programs that Whites hate so much.

On the other hand, I am not a typical White person. I am very hard to the Left; in fact, I am an out and out socialist.

Many countries have health care for all despite being ethnically diverse. However, in a lot of these countries, public health care and education is simply underfunded, so the dominant group, whoever they may be, simply goes to private hospitals and schools. India is an excellent example of this as is much of Latin America.

All of the Arab World has social democracy under the rubric of Islam, or in the case of Lebanon, ethnic peace, and Lebanon is unstable for ethnic/religious reasons. And some Arab countries with prominent religious of ethnic minorities are very unstable or at war.

All of North Africa has social democracy except Morocco, although minority Berbers are dealt with by denial of their existence and roping them into the main group, Arabs. Ethiopia has tremendous ethnic diversity and some religious diversity, but they have a good working socialist system. Eritrea is the same but the main divide there is religious rather than ethnic.

Zimbabwe has a good working system although it has many tribes. Argentina and formerly Bolivia and Ecuador has or had working social democracies, although all three countries had serious instabilities; in all cases the rich objecting to sharing with the poor and with a racial element in Bolivia. A number of countries in Latin America do have social democracies, but they don’t work very well because the rich don’t want to share with the poor.

In a number of those countries such as Peru, Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Haiti,and Mexico also have an ethnic element in that the dominant rich group tends to be Whiter or lighter-skinned though not usually White per who don’t want to share with the poorer, darker, folks who are more mixed with Indian and in some cases Blacks.

A number of countries in Latin America have homogeneous populations, but the rich still don’t want to share with the poor, so that doesn’t solve everything. And historically speaking, most nations were quite homogeneous, nevertheless the rich still shared just about fuck all with everyone else and needed an actual revolution to be convinced to do so.

Russia and China has very good working social democracies although they have many minorities, although China and to some extent Russia has some ethnic warfare. Ukraine has a good system despite minorities and ethnic warfare. Vietnam, Cambodia, Bhutan, and Laos have good systems despite having anywhere to a couple to many ethnic minorities. Malaysia has a working social democracy and it has a large ethnic divide. Japan has minorities with an excellent social democracy.

Most of the former Soviet republics probably still have working systems although most have large minority populations.Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran have social democracies and minority groups. However, in Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran are currently embroiled in ethnic separatist wars.

Most of the countries with non-working systems are not only rightwing but also quite poor. Hong Kong is an exception. The government is very rightwing, but there are not ethnic problems. It’s all one ethnic group, but the rich ones hate the poor ones, just as it was traditionally.

Some are just poor. Most of Africa has social democracy, but it often doesn’t work well due to poverty. To some extent this is true in Pakistan, Mongolia, Yemen, Moldova, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Burma, and Thailand. It is also true in Ecuador, Guatemala, most of the Caribbean, Chile, and Paraguay. In these places, social democracy doesn’t work more due to poverty than to diversity.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Refuting Western Media and State Lies about Iran

The Evil Basij Repress the Vast Majority of Iranians

The media in the West says there is this evil group called the Basij who come out and break up every demonstration, no matter how peaceful, with serious violence. Supposedly the vast majority of Iranians are being oppressed by this tiny group of thugs.

First of all, the Basij is simply something like the National Guard of Iran. The Basij has an incredible membership of 11 million men; in other words, an amazing 42% of Iranian men are part of the Basij. The Basij is not some tiny horrible group of monsters oppressing the vast majority of Iranians. The Basij is literally the Iranian people themselves, an army of the people if there ever was one.

Demonstrations, No Matter How Peaceful, Are Not Allowed in Iran and Are Always Broken Up with Violence

This is absolute nonsense. Though Iran is not Cuba where the only people who demonstrate are the Ladies in White – the wives and family members of political prisoners, neither is it China where there are 500 demonstrations every single day.

Instead it is somewhere in between. Nevertheless there are demonstrations all the time in Iran, practically every day, the vast majority of them are peaceful, and nothing ever happens. Khameini himself recently affirmed the Iranian people’s right to demonstrate peacefully about a wide range of issues.

The Peaceful Demonstrations about a Fuel Price Hike Got Broken up by Evil Regime Elements, Killing 1,500 demonstrators

First of all, that death toll is way off. It’s inflated by at least five times. The highest reasonable toll for those killed during the demonstrations is 300. Furthermore, the demonstrations that were broken up were not about the fuel hike, and they were certainly not peaceful. On the contrary, they were extremely violent, and from day one, they were advocating the violent overthrow of the government. In fact, they were actually trying to do just that – violently overthrow the government.

Here’s the truth about what happened.

Yes, there were large demonstrations about the fuel hike. The demonstrations were dumb though. Iranian gasoline is massively subsidized by the state to the point where Iranians  pay ~10 cents/gallon for gas. The state simply cannot afford to keep subsidizing gas at that level, especially with the extreme sanctions it is under.

Furthermore, the regime advocated only a small raise in price from ~10 cents/gallon to ~20 cents/gallon. So what. In addition, all of the money saved by raising the gas price was going to be given to support the poor of Iran. So the gas hike was necessary, the new price was easily affordable, and the price increase was going for a great cause.

However, these demonstrations, which were all completely peaceful by the way, lasted for only one day. Huge crowds of peaceful protesters showed up to protest the fuel price hikes, and nothing happened to them.

However, at nightfall, violent protesters or rioters showed up, and all the peaceful protesters quickly left. After that it was nothing but violent rioting for a couple of weeks, with ~200,000 mostly young men burning down almost 100 banks and other buildings, destroying everything in sight, and attacking and even killing police.

Furthermore, these violent rioters had already showed up at the peaceful rally on motorcycles and fired on the demonstrators there. So they obviously weren’t there to protest the gas hikes. Instead, as noted, these violent rioters were trying to overthrow the government by force. Most but not all of the dead were violent rioters.

There are indeed demonstrations in Iran that get broken up, often with violence. These demonstrations feature young people, often university students, who are objectively contras or counterrevolutionaries. These demonstrators typically call for the overthrow of the regime either via force or otherwise. Demonstrators yell slogans like “Death to the dictator!” and fly  American and Israeli flags.

The vast majority of Iranians absolutely hate these people. Surveys show that 85% of the population hate these contras, refer to them as traitors, and think that either sufficient force or not enough force was used to put down the riots.

The rioters have no support. Only ~15% support them. However, that boils down to a lot of people. There are ~8 million Iranians who support the violent overthrow of the regime. 8 million people can make a lot of noise and do a lot of damage, but they still only have 15% support.

There Is No Freedom of the Press in Iran

Although there are definitely limits on what you can say in Iran, and some journalists are arrested and sentenced to prison there, the press is freer than you think.

For instance, Iranian social media is a wildly free place swarming with contras. Hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of Iranians regularly post counterrevolutionary material there, often advocating for the violent overthrow of the government. There’s not a lot that the government does about this, as the situation is out of hand. Is Iran really going to arrest 2 million people for speech offenses? Come on.

After the recent accidental shootdown of the  Ukrainian jet in Tehran, I looked at the English language editions of several Iranian papers. I was absolutely stunned by the headlines. All of these papers were furious at the jet shootdown and quite a few articles were demanding the resignation of the government and its replacement with new people.

The truth is that there are two large forces in Iran that are within the revolution. One is called the Reformers and the other is called the Hardliners. Right now, the Hardliners are in charge.

Recently the Reformers captured the presidency of Iran via elections. President Rouhani was a Reformer. However, the Rouhani Administration did not rule very well, and the voters threw them out at the ballot box. Yes, Iran has fairly free and fair elections, although there are occasional cases of vote fraud. Former President Ahmadinejad, a Hardliner, was said to be elected via fraud ion 2009.

Although the Reformers support the revolution, they are quite antagonistic towards the hardliners. All of those papers I saw with those incendiary headlines were run by Reformers. So in that sense, the Iranian media is extremely free.

Surveys of Iranians

Excellent surveys of the Iranian people, some run out of the University of Maryland, paint a completely different picture than the one we get in the Western media.

Surveys show that 78% of the population supports the current system of religious rule, 90% pray every day, 86% hate America, and the same number liked Soleimani. Iranians are very religious people – some of the most religious people on Earth – and Soleimani was the most popular political or military figure in Iran.

The contra riots typically call for an end to Iran’s foreign policy, where it is supporting the armed Shia forces in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon in addition to supporting the Palestinians.

The Western media says the Iranian people are opposed to this foreign policy, which they see as expensive and unaffordable adventurism, but surveys show that ~2/3 of voters support Iran’s support of armed Shia groups in those countries. A similar number also back Iranian support for the Palestinians.

I’ve got some news for brainwashed Westerners. The Iranian Revolution has lots of supporters. Did you see the size of those crowds mourning Soleimani?

Even a lot of these hip young women with their push the limit hijabs you see nowadays showed up in huge numbers. Some of these women were wearing headbands saying things like “I Fight Israel.” I kept seeing photos of these hip young liberal women at the funeral processions, and I thought I must be hallucinating. Except I wasn’t. The media in the West lies constantly about Iran and never tells you the full and true story of what is going on there.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The U.S. Is Recycling Its Big Lie about Iraq to Target Iran

A superb article. People need to get this through their damned heads: Iran does not have a Goddamned nuclear weapons program! The CIA even said so itself in its last word in the subject in 2007. Yet this evil government of ours keeps insisting that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

This is literally the reason for the entire sanctions regime, the targeting and war threats against Iran, the bombing of pro-Iranian Iraqi Shia militias in Iraq, and the assassination of Hajj Qassem Soleimani.

How many Moronicans believe these big fat lie? How many Eurotrash believe this lie. It must be a large majority of both of them.

After all, the entire MSM in the West – every single newspaper, magazine, and TV and radio news show, along with all Western governments insists that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Not even one media outlet anywhere in the West will admit the obvious truth that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons and hasn’t had one for a minimum of 30 lies.

Guess (((who))) cooked up this big, fat lie in the (((US media))). Guess (((why))) the entire media and every state in the West keeps repeating this lie? I’ll tell you why. (((This))) is the reason why. (((These people))) want Iran invaded and destroyed because it is the only country left other than Syria which is a sworn enemy of (((their state))).

Guess who the US, UK, France, and Germany take orders from. (((This)) is who they take orders from.

Granted the US is also out to destroy Iran because the Shia-haters in Jordan, UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Sudan, Morocco, and Turkey all hate Iran simply because they are profoundly bigoted Sunnis with a homicidal hatred and paranoia of Shia Muslims.

In addition, US imperialism has had a hard-on for Iran ever since the Embassy Takeover in 1979. We never got over it. And the rule of US imperialism is simply “never forgive, never forget.” Exactly the same motto as (((some people))). Coincidence? For the crime of standing up to the US and shouting “Death to America! Death to Israel!” for 40 years, US imperialism wants Iran gone.

In addition, Iran has no central bank. US imperialism demands that all countries have central banks.

In addition, Iran is selling its oil in currencies other than dollars. This threatens the “petrodollar,” one of the essential pillars of US imperialism. The use of the dollar in international trade has indeed been declining in the past 10 years. It’s down to 63% now and a number of countries are definitely going off the dollar and substituting other currencies or a basket of currencies for international trade. So it’s not just a petrodollar. It’s a world dollar.

As long as most international trade is conducted in dollars, US imperialism can charge full steam ahead. But when that number goes down below 50%, there are going to be some serious problems for US imperialism. Namely that we won’t be able to be the Dictator of the World anymore.

And this World Dictator and Most Powerful Nation on Earth nonsense is one thing that America wants to keep perhaps more than anything else. The US will do most anything, start wars, kill millions of people – it matters not- to retain those positions.

As Lenin said, power does not give up without a fight which was one reason that he said the electoral road to socialism could never happen and why he called people who supported it “parliamentary cretins.” It’s not so much that he opposed it, as he simply thought it would not work.

It is instructive to note that every single country that has gone off the dollar has been either attacked, subjected to heavy sanctions, had coups, color revolutions, or armed insurgencies unleashed upon. Sometimes more than one or all of the above.

  • Iraq went off the petrodollar. It was invaded soon after.
  • Libya went off the petrodollar. It was quickly attacked.
  • Syria went off the petrodollar. It had an insurgency unleashed upon it.
  • Iran is going off the petrodollar. It’s been subject to many threats and vicious sanctions.
  • North Korea went off the dollar. Result was totally brutal sanctions, many deaths, and endless military threats.
  • Venezuela is going off the petrodollar. Result: sanctions, economic warfare, and coup attempts with lockout strikes, use of armed forces, violent street demonstrations and now with an entire fake alternate facts government set up led by a man who was never elected President even one time.
  • Russia and China are going off the dollar. Result: sanctions, tariffs, and hybrid warfare was launched on both countries and both have been designated as top US enemies. A color revolution is being attempted in Hong Kong.

See how this works?

The U.S. Is Recycling Its Big Lie About Iraq to Target Iran

Sixteen years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, most Americans understand that it was an illegal war based on lies about non-existent “weapons of mass destruction.” But our government is now threatening to drag us into a war on Iran with a nearly identical “big lie” about a non-existent nuclear weapons program, based on politicized intelligence from the same CIA teams that wove a web of lies to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In 2002-3, U.S. officials and corporate media pundits repeated again and again that Iraq had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that posed a dire threat to the world. The CIA produced reams of false intelligence to support the march to war and cherry-picked the most deceptively persuasive narratives for Secretary of State Colin Powell to present to the UN Security Council on February 5th 2003.

In December 2002, Alan Foley, the head of the CIA’s Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) told his staff,

If the president wants to go to war, our job is to find the intelligence to allow him to do so.

Paul Pillar, a CIA officer who was the National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia, helped to prepare a 25-page document that was passed off to Members of Congress as a “summary” of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq.

But the document was written months before the NIE it claimed to summarize and contained fantastic claims that were nowhere to be found in the NIE, such as that the CIA knew of 550 specific sites in Iraq where chemical and biological weapons were stored. Most members read only this fake summary, not the real NIE, and blindly voted for war. As Pillar later confessed to PBS’s Frontline:

The purpose was to strengthen the case for going to war with the American public. Is it proper for the intelligence community to publish papers for that purpose? I don’t think so and I regret having had a role in it.

WINPAC was set up in 2001 to replace the CIA’s Nonproliferation Center or NPC (1991-2001), where a staff of 100 CIA analysts collected possible evidence of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons development to support U.S. information warfare, sanctions, and ultimately regime change policies against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and other U.S. enemies.

WINPAC uses the U.S.’s satellite, electronic surveillance, and international spy networks to generate material to feed to UN agencies like UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which are charged with overseeing the non-proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

The CIA’s material has kept these agencies’ inspectors and analysts busy with an endless stream of documents, satellite imagery, and claims by exiles for almost 30 years. But since Iraq destroyed all its banned weapons in 1991, they have found no confirming evidence that either Iraq or Iran has taken steps to acquire nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.

UNMOVIC and the IAEA told the UN Security Council in 2002-3 they could find no evidence to support U.S. allegations of illegal weapons development in Iraq.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei exposed the CIA’s Niger yellowcake document as a forgery in a matter of hours. ElBaradei’s commitment to the independence and impartiality of his agency won the respect of the world, and he and his agency were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005.

Apart from outright forgeries and deliberately fabricated evidence from exile groups like Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress (INC) and the Iranian Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), most of the material the CIA and its allies have provided to UN agencies has involved dual-use technology which could be used in banned weapons programs but also as alternative legitimate uses.

A great deal of the IAEA’s work in Iran has been to verify that each of these items has in fact been used for peaceful purposes or conventional weapons development rather than in a nuclear weapons program.

But as in Iraq, the accumulation of inconclusive, unsubstantiated evidence of a possible nuclear weapons program has served as a valuable political weapon to convince the media and the public that there must be something solid behind all the smoke and mirrors.

For instance, in 1990, the CIA began intercepting  Telex messages from Sharif University in Tehran and Iran’s Physics Research Centre about orders for ring magnets, fluoride, and fluoride-handling equipment, a balancing machine, a mass spectrometer, and vacuum equipment, all of which can be used in uranium enrichment.

For the next 17 years, the CIA’s NPC and WINPAC regarded these telexes as some of their strongest evidence of a secret nuclear weapons program in Iran, and they were cited as such by senior U.S. officials. It was not until 2007-8 that the Iranian government finally tracked down all these items at Sharif University, and the IAEA inspectors were able to visit the university and confirm that they were being used for academic research and teaching as Iran had told them.

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the IAEA’s work in Iran continued, but every lead provided by the CIA and its allies proved to be either fabricated, innocent, or inconclusive. In 2007, U.S. intelligence agencies published a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran in which they acknowledged that Iran had no active nuclear weapons program. The publication of the 2007 NIE was an important step in averting a U.S. war on Iran.

As George W. Bush wrote in his memoirs, “…after the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?”

But despite the lack of confirming evidence, the CIA refused to alter the “assessment” from its 2001 and 2005 NIE’s that Iran probably did have a nuclear weapons program prior to 2003. This left the door open for the continued use of WMD allegations, inspections, and sanctions as potent political weapons in the U.S.’s regime change policy toward Iran.

In 2007, UNMOVIC published a Compendium or final report on the lessons learned from the debacle in Iraq. One key lesson was that “complete independence is a prerequisite for a UN inspection agency” so that the inspection process would not be used “either to support other agendas or to keep the inspected party in a permanent state of weakness.”

Another key lesson was that “proving the negative is a recipe for enduring difficulties and unending inspections.” The 2005 Robb-Silberman Commission on the U.S. intelligence failure in Iraq reached very similar conclusions, such as that“…analysts effectively shifted the burden of proof, requiring proof that Iraq did not have active WMD programs rather than requiring affirmative proof of their existence.

“While the U.S. policy position was that Iraq bore the responsibility to prove that it did not have banned weapons programs, the Intelligence Community’s burden of proof should have been more objective…

“By raising the evidentiary burden so high, analysts artificially skewed the analytical process toward confirmation of their original hypothesis – that Iraq had active WMD programs.”

In its work on Iran, the CIA has carried on the flawed analysis and processes identified by the UNMOVIC Compendium and the Robb-Silberman report on Iraq.

The pressure to produce politicized intelligence that supports U.S. policy positions persists because that is the corrupt role that U.S. intelligence agencies play in U.S. policy, spying on other governments, staging coups, destabilizing countries, and producing politicized and fabricated intelligence to create pretexts for war.

A legitimate national intelligence agency would provide objective intelligence analysis that policymakers could use as a basis for rational policy decisions. But as the UNMOVIC Compendium implied, the U.S. government is unscrupulous in abusing the concept of intelligence and the authority of international institutions like the IAEA to “support other agendas,” notably its desire for regime change in countries around the world.

The U.S.’s “other agenda” on Iran gained a valuable ally when Mohamed ElBaradei retired from the IAEA in 2009 and was replaced by Yukiya Amano from Japan. A State Department cable from July 10th, 2009 released by Wikileaks described Mr. Amano as a “strong partner” to the U.S. based on “the very high degree of convergence between his priorities and our own agenda at the IAEA.”

The memo suggested that the U.S. should try to “shape Amano’s thinking before his agenda collides with the IAEA Secretariat bureaucracy.”  The memo’s author was Geoffrey Pyatt, who later achieved international notoriety as the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine who was exposed on a leaked audio recording plotting the 2014 coup in Ukraine with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.

The Obama administration spent its first term pursuing a failed “dual-track” approach to Iran in which its diplomacy was undermined by the greater priority it gave to its parallel track of escalating UN sanctions. When Brazil and Turkey presented Iran with the framework of a nuclear deal that the U.S. had proposed, Iran readily agreed to it.

But the U.S. rejected what had begun as a U.S. proposal because by that point, it would have undercut its efforts to persuade the UN Security Council to impose harsher sanctions on Iran. As a senior State Department official told author Trita Parsi, the real problem was that the U.S. wouldn’t take “yes” for an answer.

It was only in Obama’s second term after John Kerry replaced Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, that the U.S. finally did take “yes” for an answer, leading to the JCPOA between Iran, the U.S., and other major powers in 2015. So it was not U.S.-backed sanctions that brought Iran to the table but the failure of sanctions that brought the U.S. to the table.

Also in 2015, the IAEA completed its work on “Outstanding Issues” regarding Iran’s past nuclear-related activities. On each specific case of dual-use research or technology imports, the IAEA found no proof that they were related to nuclear weapons rather than conventional military or civilian uses.

Under Amano’s leadership and U.S. pressure, the IAEA “assessed” that “a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device were conducted in Iran prior to the end of 2003,” but that “these activities did not advance beyond feasibility studies and the acquisition of certain relevant technical competences and capabilities.”

The JCPOA has broad support in Washington. But the U.S. political debate over the JCPOA has essentially ignored the actual results of the IAEA’s work in Iran, the CIA’s distorting role in it, and the extent to which the CIA has replicated the institutional biases, reinforcing of preconceptions, forgeries, politicization and corruption by “other agendas” that were supposed to be corrected to prevent any repetition of the WMD fiasco in Iraq.

Politicians who support the JCPOA now claim that it stopped Iran getting nuclear weapons, while those who oppose the JCPOA claim that it would allow Iran to acquire them.

They are both wrong because as the IAEA has concluded and even President Bush acknowledged, Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program. The worst that the IAEA can objectively say is that Iran may have done some basic nuclear weapons-related research some time before 2003, but then again, maybe it didn’t.

Mohamed ElBaradei wrote in his memoir, The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times that if Iran ever conducted even rudimentary nuclear weapons research, he was sure it was only during the Iran-Iraq War which ended in 1988, when the U.S. and its allies helped Iraq kill up to 100,000 Iranians with chemical weapons.

If ElBaradei’s suspicions were correct, Iran’s dilemma since that time would have been that it could not admit to that work in the 1980s without facing even greater mistrust and hostility from the U.S. and its allies and risking a similar fate to Iraq.

Regardless of uncertainties regarding Iran’s actions in the 1980s, the U.S.’s campaign against Iran has violated the most critical lessons U.S. and UN officials claimed to have learned from the debacle in Iraq.

The CIA has used its almost entirely baseless suspicions about nuclear weapons in Iran as pretexts to “support other agendas” and “keep the inspected party in a permanent state of weakness,” exactly as the UNMOVIC Compendium warned against ever again doing to another country.

In Iran as in Iraq, this has led to an illegal regime of brutal sanctions under which thousands of children are dying from preventable diseases and malnutrition and to threats of another illegal U.S. war that would engulf the Middle East and the world in even greater chaos than the one the CIA engineered against Iraq.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is a freelance writer, researcher for CODEPINK and author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Heavy US Casualties in Afghanistan

8 American soldiers were killed and at least 6 more wounded while 12 Afghan troops were also killed in two separate attacks. A US mercenary was taken prisoner in a third attack. All attacks happened in the last three days.

The first attack was an insider attack that occurred when an Afghan soldier attacked a combined US-Afghan force in the Sherzad District in Nangarhar Province. These insider attacks are quite common. The people who do them were either already radicalized or become radicalized while in the army. A few have escaped and in all cases, they joined the Taliban. 2 US soldiers were killed and 6 were wounded, and 6 Afghan soldiers were killed.

The other attack also took place in Nangarhar in an operation where US and Afghan troops were trying to clear an area there that had been completely overrun by the Taliban recently. It was unclear whether the Taliban or the Islamic State was behind that attack.

Nangarhar has long been overrun with militants. This is where Obama bin Laden and his forces hid out and escaped from in Tora Bora after all in the southern part of the province on the border with North Waziristan in Pakistan.

In a third case, a US contractor was taken prisoner by the Taliban in Khost Province. He appears to have been a mercenary. Khost has long been overrun with militants also. It’s also on the border with Pakistan, though it’s a bit to the south. I think it borders on South Waziristan.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Being a White Supremacist Who Is Liberal on Most Social and Economic Issues Is a Tough Cake to Bake

transformer: Robert, do you think progressive liberals can be liberal in their economic and social perspectives but still believe in White Supremacy? I think so.

There are definitely some. One of the early Alt-Leftists, Brandon Adamson, is like that. But his racism is awful mild, probably because he’s basically a liberal on everything but race.

And I am living with someone like that right now. Well, he is here 12 hours a day, let’s put it that way. But he’s now more of a Centrist.

The more they get into their racism, the more they seem to move to the Center. The liberal-Left is just not a friendly place to be for White racists. You are constantly seeing this “You Are Not Welcome Here” everywhere you go. It will be hard to make friends who share your views. You will only be able to make friends with other racists and most of them will be conservatives.

After a while, you just start drifting right. Most all antisemites drift Right too, even if they started on the Left. And a lot of Left antisemites convert to Islam. It’s very common.

Convert to Islam, start drifting Right, talk about “going beyond Left and Right,” “uniting the Left the and Right” and other 3rd Positionist stuff. And most are not liberal on all social stuff. I know a Marxist gay man who went that route, but he’s a social conservative on gay issues. He’s also one of the smartest people I’ve ever known. They end up this weird hybrid that I suppose could best be called 3rd Positionism or even Alt Left for that matter.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Jews and Communism Redux

Polar Bear: What little Communist literature I’ve read seemed very pro-German, Ehrenberg?

I don’t understand. Ilya Ehrenberg was one of the most anti-German people who ever lived.

However, after the war, the USSR had excellent relations with East Germany. Communism was quite popular in East Germany, and nostalgia for the GDR is still a big thing there. A lot of people reminisce about the old days and are not happy with the new capitalism. A lot of West German Leftists left and moved to East Germany after the war. Incredible, isn’t it? People actually moving to a Communist country.

Of course Marx was extremely pro-German. He was a German man after all. Marx didn’t really consider himself to be a Jew. Neither did Trotsky. That’s just bullshit made up by anti-Communist antisemites, which is like 95% of them. Pro-Communist or Communist antisemites are rare indeed, despite the blatherings of super Jews, anti-Communist Jews, hardcore Zionists, and other professional liars.

Polar Bear: No, I believe it was Engels. He was also very soft on Jews.

Ha ha ever read The Jewish Question by Marx (1843)? It’s hard to read but a lot of super-Jews really hate the paper. They think it’s antisemitic. I don’t think it really is. It’s anti-Jewish religion. He says there is no Jewish religion – all the religion is is capitalism and love of money ha ha. Good times, good times! Marx didn’t like Christianity either. He didn’t like any religion. I don’t think he disliked Jews ethnically. After all he was Jewish himself. Marx’s father was a rabbi!

Polar Bear: Maybe the great unifier early on was Jews.

There were not that many Communists from Marx’s death until the Russian revolution. The early pre-Soviet Communists were not particularly Jewish. Stalin was a bank robber. Lenin spent most of his time abroad in Germany. They were all wanted men.

Yes, there were a lot of Jews among the early Bolsheviks, but in 1917, 70% of Russian Jews voted for the Zionist party, not the Communists. Also the other socialist parties were also full of Jews. But almost all of the popular parties in 1917 were Left. It was just a question of how far left people were going to go. Most of the Russian people were dirt poor workers or peasants and they were all for the Left.

Hardly anyone wanted the old Royalists back. There were definitely pro-royalists all right though. Those were the Whites in the Russian Civil War. But they lost. Even the Russian Army and especially the Intelligence Services all went over to the Reds.

And the Whites killed a lot of Jews during the Civil War. The Reds probably hardly killed any. Even in the USSR, yes, Jews were prominent in some fields. The NKVD ended up being very Jewish in the 1930’s, but it was run by a Georgian named Beria.

Old Soviets said that ethnicity never mattered in the USSR. You were not supposed to care or talk about things like that. A lot of Jews just drifted into that position at that time for whatever reason. A lot of Russian Jews really hated the Czar, so quite a few of them took to Communism well. But the majority of the people in the USSR supported the Communists. How do you think they won the war?

And there were just as many Latvians as Jews among the early Bolsheviks. Does anyone  talk about evil Bolshevik Latvians? Of course not. It’s like the old adage: Maybe one out of ten Jews is a radical, but five out of ten radicals are Jews. Get it?

Polar Bear: Seems like a lot the men that married Jews ended up hating them.

I don’t know about that. I had a Jewish girlfriend for 5 1/2 years. She was kind of a bitch and she sort of talked down to me and yelled at me a lot to the point that even other women were complaining about how she treated me.

But she adored me and she was a real “stand by your man” and “live your life through your man” type. Almost like a Filipina or Thai woman in that sense. I never expected Jewish women to be like that maybe a lot of them are. They also have a reputation for being nurturing.

As an aside, there are a lot more “stand by your man” and “live your life through your man” types than you think. It’s fairly normal if she’s crazy in love with you. Maybe it helps to be goodlooking too, no idea.

The people who don’t like Jewish women are Jewish men ha ha. I’m not sure if Gentile men even care that much. There’s sort of a war going on between Jewish men and women, sort of like the war between Black men and women.

And I don’t know if it was a factor in Marr’s case.

I think Marr is hilarious. Guy married three different Jewish women, divorces all of them and then forms the Anti-Semitic League, the first openly anti-Jewish organization in modern history. Ha ha! I have no idea what effect his wives had on him. Maybe none. But it is pretty funny just to tell the story because it seems like his Jewish wives drove him so insane that he founded the first modern anti-Jewish organization.

Lulz all around!

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

The Idea of Uncleanness or Contamination in Muslims, Jews, and Roma

By the way, this Middle Eastern Christian woman I referred to in the previous post didn’t like Muslims much at all. But she didn’t like Israel either. And I think she wasn’t ecstatic about Jews either.

American Zionists and Islamophobes probably jump for joy when they find a Middle Eastern Christian who doesn’t like Muslims. They think they’ve got a pal. Whoops, nope. I guarantee you that most Middle Eastern Christians who don’t like Muslims too much, also:

  • Hate Israel
  • Are not real keen on Jews

Anyway, this woman said that the Muslims had not been kind to her people. In the market in Urmia, Iran, where she was from, they don’t want the Christians to touch the bread. They think any food that a Christian touches is basically contaminated or unclean.

The Iranians have a similar attitude towards Iranian Jews – an uncleanness view. The Iranian state actually tries to promote positive attitudes towards the Iranian Jews. The Iranian Jews live pretty well and are well-protected by the state. They have two seats set aside for them in the Iranian Parliament, even though with a population of 6,000, they barely deserve even one seat.

A delegation of Iranian Jews accompanied “Nazi” Ahmadinejad to the US when he came for a visit. He’s obviously a real Nazi out to kill all the Jews if he invited a bunch of Jews to travel with him! However, despite the state’s efforts, old habits of Iranian Muslims for dealing with Jews (and Christians) die hard.

What’s interesting is that Jews themselves had ideas like this for a very long time. What do you think the Kosher rules about food are all about? They are all about cleanness and uncleanness or contamination. It’s also interesting that Gypsies (Roma) have the same ideas. According to them all non-Roma are unclean or contaminated.

This idea that the other people are unclean doesn’t seem to be a great idea for a group to have because the group that contends that all of the outgroup (everyone who’s not us) is contaminated or unclean seems to have a hostile attitude towards the outgroup (duh), and they also seem to have a tendency to con and rip off the outgroup (Jews and Roma).

“Everyone who’s not us is unclean or contaminated” doesn’t seem to be a real great way of looking at the world. Ultimately it is just tribalism though, the classic human instinct that’s good and bad, mostly bad in my opinion. By the way,  all of this SJW stuff is nothing but tribalist bullshit.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Pro-Israel Project in the US Involves a Lot of US Gentiles Too

Mithridates: Yeah, basically Soleimani’s high crime was being a major thorn in the side of Israel.

I honestly think that’s the real reason he was killed. However, it’s not just a Jew thing. Pompeo is the one who convinced Trump to kill Soleimani, and Bolton had been pushing for it too. Neither one is Jewish though they might as well be. I call people like that Judaized Gentiles. Both men support Israel more than your average Jew does.

That’s the thing: the Israel thing is not just a Jew thing. A lot of Gentiles are in on this Israel project too, and they are doing it because they want to, not because some Jew put a gun to their head.

That’s why I say that the US is a Jewish country, or more properly a “Jewish” country. The Jews are all Jews, and the Gentiles are all Jews too (Judaized Gentiles).

That’s why I say there will never be a Nazi revolt here. I mean Alex Linder and his pals could decide to start killing Jews, but the problem is that they would have to start with their White nationalist buddies, who in my opinion are basically “Jewish” (Judaized) themselves. So the Nazi revolution would ultimately be suicidal.

We are not Jews de jure obviously and maybe not even de facto. Americans are Jewish “in spirit.” It’s a tough concept to get your mind around, but if you study Jews long enough, maybe you can figure it out.

I dated an Iranian Assyrian Christian woman once. She was pretty into being Christian. Like, as in the kids went to Christian classes after school, like that. She was emphatic that America was not a Christian country. She said:

No, America is not a Christian country. America is a Jewish country. All you care about is money here. You worship money. That’s not Christianity. That’s Judaism.

I actually think she was right. We are all Jews now! Face it, guys. We’re all a bunch of kikes! You, me, and everyone else. Get used to it.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The US Murder of Qassem Soleimani – What Was It All About?

The murder of Hajj Qassem Soleimani, a great fighter against the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS, for the oppressed and downtrodden and against the oppressors all over the Near East and Southwest Asia for the last two decades, was obviously an international war crime. You don’t just get to go around murdering generals of other countries that you aren’t even at war with.

All of the justifications for his killing were fake. He was not planning any attacks against US interests, much less against four of our embassies. Those are just lies made up by the Americans with a little help from some (((friends))).

Soleimani is absolutely not responsible for the deaths of 600 US troops in Iraq. Not that I would care if he was. Those soldiers deserved to die. They waged an illegal, Nazi-like war of aggression on Iraq and then they occupied the land that they conquered and installed their puppet government in while they set about exploiting the resources, especially oil, and out and out stealing $8 million cash.

The reconstruction work was a boondoggle that had huge cost overruns and generally didn’t produce much of anything good. Much of what was produced was shoddy and fell apart. Graft and corruption were huge factors in reconstruction with both US and Iraqi contractors.

The UN itself has stated that the Iraqi resistance does not violate the rules of war and that the Iraqi people have a 100% legal right to resistance against illegal occupiers. So the resistance was both morally and legally proper.’

The 600 US dead is based on some figure for how many Americans were killed by so-called shaped explosive IED’s designed to penetrate the thickest armored vehicles. The technology supposedly came from Iran and it is from this theory that the claim that Iran and Soleimani killed 600 Americans comes. However, the tech did not come from Iran.

Initially, it came from the Lebanese Hezbollah, who were active in the Iraqi resistance also for some time. They taught the Iraqi guerrillas how the technology. From then on it was mostly manufactured inside Iraq by the guerrillas themselves. Yes, one Iranian said to be a spy was captured with shaped explosives in Iraq in 2006. Big deal. The Iraqis already had their own.

For most of the early stage of the war, Iran had no involvement. The British had control of the Shia South and then said that in the early years, they never found any evidence of Iran supplying guerrillas with arms.

Later in the war, Shia militias such as Moqtada Sadr’s army got involved in the war against the US. They got beaten pretty badly for a variety of reasons but they definitely inflicted some casualties on US troops. It is definitely possible that Iran and Soleimani may have helped supply the Mahdi Army with weaponry. But so what? They had a right to fight us anyway.

However, there was a revenge attack against a US base in Najaf. The US had arrested several Iranians and accused them of being spies. They were apparently members of the Qods Force. The US refused to release them.

An Iraqi Shia group launched a very sophisticated attack in which they dressed up in US uniforms and gained access to the base. When there, they took five US soldiers prisoner. Then then escaped with them. The troops were taken somewhere and executed. The Shia militia that carried out that attack definitely had help from Iran and Soleimani. After the attack, the Iranians were released by the US.  So you can definitely credit Soleimani with five US deaths.

Earlier, the British had arrested a number of Iranians who they accused of being spies. These may as well have been Qods Force members. In return, mysterious forces captured four British troops and executed them. The Qods Force may well have carried out this operation. The Qods Force members in British custody were then released.

The overwhelming majority of casualties inflicted on US forces in Iraq were via Sunni guerrillas, often hardline Islamists who hate the Shia and Iran. There is little good evidence that Iran was arming their worst enemies, these forces.

So we so far have a whole nine Western casualties, five Americans and four British, we can credit directly to Soleimani, the Qods Force, and Iran.

For a period of 2001-2019 during which Iran and the US have faced off on the opposite sites in various warzones, that’s not a large number.

You can probably credit more casualties to Soleimani if you include those inflicted by the Mahdi Army, but I’m not sure what that figure is.

There are also complaints that Soleimani helped Hezbollah. He sure did. That resulted in 200 dead (((Israelis))) in 2006. Excuse me, but I didn’t realize that (((“Israelis”))) were the same thing as Americans. But hey, now that Current Year America is more like (((America))), maybe that’s the case.

There is a complaint that Soleimani and Iran massacred hundreds of thousands of Sunni civilians in Syria. Not so. The Qods Force had a small group of advisors embedded in the Syrian Army. They helped the Syrian Army fight and defeat ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other radical Sunni Islamists in many battles. They didn’t fly planes or bomb cities. They didn’t do much of anything.

Yes, Shia militias from Iraq, Afghanistan and Hezbollah from Lebanon participated in the war against the Sunni Islamists, but there are not a lot of reports of atrocities committed by them. Much of the civilian casualties have come from bombing of rebel-held cities by Syrian and Russian jets.

Reports of massacres and chemical weapons attacks that killed large numbers of civilians are all made up. The massacres were all done by the rebels of villages that supported Assad. After they chopped the people up, the rebels turned around and accused Assad of doing it. The Western media lapped it up like chumps.

None of the chemical weapons attacks occurred. I’ve studied every single one of them. None of them even happened. None of the chlorine attacks even happened. Assad doesn’t use chlorine gas.

I’m not saying Assad is a nice guy. He’s probably executed 50,000 people in his prison and a lot of others died of maltreatment. But he doesn’t do civilian massacres or chemical weapons attacks. He kills people, sure, but only has certain ways of doing it and he avoids other ways of doing it.

Soleimani helped the Houthi rebels in Yemen. This is supposedly a big crime. Well, good for him! The righteous cause in Yemen is the Houthis. The bad guys are the US, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

Soleimani fought a number of big battles against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Conveniently, the media left this part of the narrative because it made him look like a good guy.

Soleimani also formed Iraqi Shia militias to fight ISIS. The truth is that if not for Iran and Soleimani, ISIS would have conquered Iraq. That’s simply the dirty truth. You can accept it or not, but it’s still true. There are claims that some of these militias committed atrocities against Sunni civilians. That may well be true. But I understand that Soleimani and Iran were trying to put a stop to this.

The new claims are that Soleimani and Iran were behind a number of rocket attacks on US bases in recent days. No one really knows who did those attacks, though Shia militias are widely suspected. No one has ever claimed responsibility for any of these attacks.

Some of these militias like Kataib Hezbollah have a close relationship with Iran. But I know for a fact that not only do these militias not take orders from Iran (no Iranian “proxies” take orders from Iran), but that Soleimani and Iran had nothing at all to do with these rocket attacks.

The US had been allowing Israel to bomb the bases of these militia on the Syrian border for some time, so the militias that were getting bombed probably decided to start shooting some rockets at US bases in revenge. Why not? Anyway, we started it. The militias were just fighting back.

One attack on a base in Kirkuk killed one American and wounded four more. Trump went ballistic after this attack.

This was followed by a US bombing raid on a Shia militia on the border of Syria and Iran that killed ~27 troops and wounded ~75 others. However the militia that was attacked was part of the Iraqi military. In fact all of the “Iranian proxy” Shia militias are actually part of the Iraqi military. They take orders from the Iraqi Central Command.

Most of the dead and wounded were actually members of the Iraqi military who were not members of that militia. That is because the bases of these militias are full of Iraqi military people who are not members of those militias. It’s all mixed together.

After that, outraged members of the militia that got bombed swarmed the US Embassy in the Green Zone in Baghdad. They destroyed some stuff but no Americans got hurt. The US blamed “Iran” for the embassy mobbing, although I know for a fact that Iran had nothing to do with it. This militia just got bombed by the US and had its members killed and wounded. You think they need to get orders from Iran to angrily swarm an embassy after that?

We then murdered both Soleimani and Mohandes at the Baghdad Airport, the leader of the PMU Shia militias, which as I said are now part of the Iraqi military. It was the PMU that basically defeated ISIS in Iraq.

Soleimani had been lured to Baghdad to meet with the Prime Minister as part of a Saudi proposal to ease tensions with Iran. So he was there as a diplomat to try to negotiate a peace treaty. It now looks like the US and Saudi Arabia set him up for this by using a fake peace treaty.

The Iraqi government was very mad about this. There is a video of the Iraqi Parliament standing in their seats and chanting, “Death to America.” This is the Iraqi Parliament. The government then voted to order all US forces and forces allied with them to leave Iraq.

The US incredibly thumbed its nose at Iraq and refused to leave. That means that we are now officially occupiers as we are there against the will of the government. Trump threatened Iraq with devastating sanctions if they went through with this.

Later he threatened to seize Iraq’s account at the New York Central Bank that they use for oil sales. We were going steal all of the money that they had in the account (How the Hell is that legal?) and then cut them off from it. Most world trade in dollars goes through the New York Central Bank. See all those rich people in New York? Well, a lot of the are involved in one way or another with the New York Central Bank.

This goes back to the petrodollar, which the US uses to enforce its dictatorship on the rest of the world. US hegemony rests on many things, but the petrodollar is one of them. Most oil and other commodities for that matter are traded in dollars and no in other currencies.

This has many advantages for the US in economic terms which I don’t quite understand. For one thing it allows us to borrow until the cows come home with few to no consequences.

Most of the recent wars and threats of wars we have waged have been to support the petrodollar. Basically, you go off the petrodollar, you get regime-changed or attacked and overthrown.

For example, Saddam went off the petrodollar. Soon after he got invaded. Oh and one of the first things we did after we conquered Iraq was to put Iraq back on the dollar.

Ghaddafi went off the petrodollar. Look what happened to him.

Syria went off the petrodollar. Look at Syria.

Iran is going off the petrodollar. What’s happening to Iran?

Venezuela is going off the petrodollar. What’s up with Venezuela?

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

“There’s a Little Jew in Every German”

Jason: In the new antisemitism – maybe post-Darwin – it’s all about race, so the Jew who coverts doesn’t make a difference.

This was one of the saddest things about the Nazi type of racial antisemitism or new antisemitism. A lot of European Jews, especially in Germany, had converted out of Judaism – usually to Christianity – and the Nazis rounded them up anyway if they had a Jewish mother.

And in Germany a lot of Jews had converted out, often to Protestantism. There’s a saying in Germany, “There’s a little Jew in every German,” and it’s true to an extent. Which makes the Holocaust even more weird because it was basically very watered-down Jews (Nazis) calling much more pure Jews (the actual named Jews) “Jews” and killing them. So in a way the Holocaust was Jews killing Jews!

It’s hard to see Nazis as Jews, but I’m sure a lot of them had a little Jewish blood. Jewish blood in Germany was such a huge problem though that the Nazis had to devise all sorts of odd rules about who was a Jew. If your father was a Jew, a lot of times, you just got off scot free. Not necessarily always though.

A huge number of half-Jews served in the German Army, and I there even a figure tossed around that 300,000 half-Jews served in the SS! I’m not sure how true that is, but if it is true, it is shocking because the SS was truly vicious antisemites. The Nazis needed to draw the line somewhere about who was a Jew because otherwise they would have had to kill half the country ha ha.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Standard Antisemitism Is Rightwing and Has Nothing to Offer Me or Any Other Liberal or Progressive Person

Other than the role of Israel in US politics and foreign policy, which is truly malign, as far as any other beefs against Jews that antisemites have, I’m not really into them. Those arguments just don’t resonate with me. I don’t particularly care what Jews do in my country outside of the Israel thing. Who cares!

Antisemitism is rightwing anyway. I get annoyed at Jews’ bullshit, and I like to talk about how they annoy me, but that’s not a matter of hatred. I don’t hate annoying people. They’re not contemptible; they’re just annoying. Two different things.

But as far as the Jews’ bullshit, games, and scams, that’s just them being silly.  All of the rest of us are morons for falling for these silly ethnic games they are playing on us. And if we are falling for their crap, oh well. We deserve whatever we get.

I’m not into Jews’ Endless Victim trip, which is really just Jewish Identity Politics. And I’ll bash Jewish IP on here like I bash any other IP. But I bash all retarded IP’s. Jewish IP isn’t anymore idiotic and nonsensical than all the others. All the IP’s are really the same at the end of the day.

Anyway I don’t hate professional victims. I just think they are complete idiots, and I laugh at them. What sort of a moron spends his whole life wailing about what a victim he is? I hate to use the word, but that’s what a loser does. So all the victim addicts are losers in a sense. They lack the basic pride needed to love themselves enough to not fall into the pathetic victim trap.

Now if your people really are getting fucked over, ok, well, you don’t have much choice. The victim role has been shoved upon you, and owning it is just facing facts.

The classic antisemitic beef has always been rightwing.

I will go over the standard anti-Semitic line as it has been forged for the last 150 years or so, but first I will discuss other things. Prior to that, antisemitism was based on other things.

Some were silly things like Jews killed Jesus. Except Jesus himself was a Jew, and Christians are literally worshiping this Jewish dude as their hero, but never mind that. It’s really sad how many Jews were probably killed for this BS.

Another silly reason was that Jews refused to convert to Christianity. I don’t understand why that’s important at all much, less a reason to kill a man. Obviously this doesn’t resonate with me.

Others were tragic lies like Jews being accused of poisoning village wells during the plague. That’s just made-up BS; it’s not even true. Sadly, many Jews were murdered for this nasty lie.

In the Middle Ages, Jews were often persecuted due to being the visible face of feudal rule. No one saw the feudal lords. The only face of feudal rule your average serf saw were Jewish tax collectors.

Logically, Jews tended to get killed when the usual peasant rebellions took place, except they pretty much deserved it for collecting taxes for the lords, although the Jewish women, children,  old men, and those who were not working for the lords should have been spared. Anti-Jewish pogroms were very ugly things. You don’t even want to know the details.

The modern form of antisemitism is a racial antisemitism which was founded by a German man named Marr in the 1870’s  who founded the Anti-Semitic League. Yep, that’s where we get the term that everyone likes to take apart as being irrational.

Except words and phrases get to be irrational in terms of etymology. Does “You’re pulling my leg literally mean that?” No? Ok, then why say it? In Spanish, you say, “You’re pulling my hair?” Does that make any more sense? Of course not. See what I mean? Words and phrases don’t have to literally make sense. They only have to mean whatever the people who use them say that they mean. #1 rule of a subfield of Linguistics called Semantics.

Oddly enough, Marr had previously married and divorced three separate wives, all Jewish. Hell, that’s probably why he hated Jews right there, ha ha. The general argument of these “new antisemites” or “modern antisemites” was that Jews are anti-nationalists and basically traitors to the homeland. I’m not sure how valid that argument was or is. The Dreyfus Affair is a case in point of this argument.

A lot of Jews fought nobly in World War 1. During Kristallnacht, many Jews put on their WW1 uniforms and went out and stood in front of their shops to try to protect them on the grounds that people would respect the fact that they were patriots. It didn’t work. They got beat up and their stores got burned down anyway. That’s so sad.

There was an argument that a lot of Jews tried to get out of World War 2, but I’m not sure how valid that is. That’s rather low if they did considering that in Europe anyway, we fought on their behalf.

But my father had two close Jewish friends who he met during World War 2.

One man served in the Pacific with my father in Okinawa and then went to China with him after the war. That trip to China was one of the peaks of my father’s life. He talked about it a lot. It was like this wild adventure.

Another served on the European front in Italy and then in Germany with the Liberation. He was there when the death camps were liberated. The US military said that Jewish soldiers didn’t have to go see the death camps if they didn’t want to, but my father’s friend went anyway. It was bad, real bad. No words to describe how bad it was. So two of my father’s Jewish friends served in the war. Doesn’t sound like a lot of them got out of it.

Later, other forms of rightwing antisemitism formed in the 20th Century with these basic arguments.

  1. Jews are Communists and Jews led the Bolshevik Revolution that killed 90 million billion zillion gazillion Russian Christians!!

This one is funny. I supported the Bolshevik Revolution. I’m practically a Goddamned Commie. Jews led the Bolshevik Revolution? Ha ha, thank you very much, Jews! Jews are a bunch of Commies? It’s not true anyway but if it’s true, thank you very much, Jews!

2. Jews push racemixing and are trying to genocide the White race. There’s actually some truth to this. Jews in the US have indeed been trying to make Whites a minority in the US,  or at least some of them have. Some of them have anyway. As one Jew said, “When we get Whites down below 50%, a Nazi government can never come to rise in the US.” See what they are doing? It’s all about self-preservation. They’re not just doing it be evil.

I don’t particularly care about this either than to note that the Jews are engaging in sleazy double standards as usual.

1. Jews all have to marry other Jews and no mixing is allowed or they go extinct.

2. But Whites need panmixia!

So promote racial fidelity for your own group while promoting racial suicide and mixture for  your enemies. Sleazy. But hey, that’s the way they are.

I figure that if Whites are so stupid as to be conned by this by pissant little tribe of humans called Jews (who are no more important than any other pissant tribe like Chechens, Burushaski, Dinka, Tuareg, or what have you) then we deserve whatever they con us into. I have no sympathy for morons. And if we Whites want to mix away and go extinct out of own own free will, which is apparently the case, well then, that’s own choice.

3. Jews promote racial hatred against Whites,  make Whites out to be the bad guys, and promote non-Whites as glorious, perfect people while promoting Whites as devils. Well, that’s awful rich of the Jews to do that considering that they’re obviously White themselves, except they lie as usual and say they’re not.

This is just a stupid Jewish game:

We’re not White (though we are), and we are non-Whites (except we’re not) along with the glorious Browns, Blacks, and Yellows, all fighting the evil White oppressor (which is actually us because we’re White). Except that Jews won’t date or marry these glorious non-Whites they throw themselves in with. Hell, they won’t even live in the same neighborhood with them.

It doesn’t even make sense logically, but a lot of Jewish arguments are like that.

So, more Jewish scamming, double standards, tribal thinking  – the usual crap. But this game is so stupid. I mean if we Whites really cared, we could probably raise a fuss about all this anti-White hatred, except the Jews and their non-White pals call us Nazis when we Whites ask people to please, pretty please not be racist against us.

Well, the Jews are definitely playing a real low game here all right, but I don’t particularly care about White-bashing and anti-White racism. I hardly deal with it, and I just laugh at any non-White who acts racist towards me because, I hate to say it, I actually do feel superior to them deep down inside at that point when they are bashing my race.

But I can see why any racially aware White person, certainly a White nationalist, would have a huge beef against Jews. They have a right to that beef because from these Whites’ POV, Jews are definitely screwing over their people.

Except I’m not a racially aware White or a White nationalist, so I don’t care.

4. Jews promote civil rights, feminism, gay rights, tranny rights, and all sorts of other civil rights stuff to weaken the moral fiber of White society so the Jews can take over and out-compete the Whites. Well, all of those movements were good ideas at least in  theory, so good on the Jews. And I doubt if they did it to weaken us. They probably just did it out of a strong sense of social justice, which Jews have had for a long time now, and that is very noble of them.

The argument also says that Jews promote these divide and conquer movements among Whites while sparing their own kind. Well, that’s not true. Jewish society is full of some of the worst feminists of them all. And it didn’t use to be, but gay and lesbian Jews are on just about every corner. I assume there are plenty of Jewish trannies too, as Jews seem to go in for anything sexually perverse for some reason.

But then you have (((George Soros))) who goes around to White Gentile countries promoting all of these rights moments, including a truly insane feminist group called Femen, which is his baby. Femen is raising the usual Hell that femikooks anywhere raise, mostly in Eastern Europe. On the other hand, when Femen tried to set up a chapter in Israel, (((Soros))) refused to fund it.

Now I am very suspicious of this man!

His game:

White Gentile societies need the most divisive radical feminism to turn the men and women against each other (Why do they need this?), while we Jews wouldn’t dare subject our own people to this divisive bullshit.

Ok, this is the sort of thing that the Elders of Zion do in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Promote all this junk for their enemies to divide them while sparing their own kind.

So congratulations Mr. (((Soros)))! You succeeded in being a living example of the worst anti-Jewish stereotypes of all! In fact, you appear to have walked right out of the pages of the Protocols, one of the most anti-Jewish books ever written! Brilliant!

Jews act out the worst anti-Jewish stereotypes and then they are shocked! Shocked! When antisemitism logically follows that. They create antisemitism, then they scream and yell about it. That’s dumb, but that’s not a reason to hate them. That’s just these foolish Jews bringing in down on themselves. Why should I hate someone for being self-destructive?

In general, I don’t care that Jews push all these SJW movements, but Mr. (((Soros)))’ behavior is extremely uncool. At any rate, (((Soros))) is not even good for the Jews. The guy’s a one man Antisemitism Manufacturing Plant in the form of a human.

Another thing I want to point out is that the SJW’s are on autopilot now. I doubt if feminism, gay rights, civil rights, tranny rights, and whatever else rights need Jews to push their causes anymore. All the US Jews could take off for Israel or the moon tomorrow, and I am pretty sure that these movements would charge right ahead. That’s because the leadership and bases of these movements is swarming with Gentiles.

5. Jews own the media. Yeah, they do, sort of. And they took it over on purpose. Not to be evil but to protect themselves. And the consequence of this Jewish media is…? What? Other than the Israel-firster stuff, not much.

Further, I do not think the media needs Jews anymore either. The other day, I saw a Canadian paper formerly owned by (((Izzy Asper))), an Israel-firster billionaire who was also a real ratfuck, as you might expect. The paper, The  National Post, is now run by Gentiles.

Well, if you go read that paper, you would think that (((Asper))) never left because the paper reads exactly like it did when (((Asper))) ran it. Still a full-blown Israel-firster paper, but now the Israel-firster articles are all written by Gentiles!

I have seen other papers go from Jewish to Gentile ownership, and not one single thing changes. So I think there is just a “media elite” politics in North America which is shared by all owners, editors, and writers for the MSM, Jews and  Gentiles both. They both push wild SJWism, bash Whites, uphold non-Whites as glorious, and are fanatical Israel-firsters.

6. Jews own Hollywood. Yes, and? Granted, it’s not very democratic, but Hollywood is not nearly as Jewish as it used to be. Many directors and producers now are Gentiles. The Jews still own a lot of the studios, but Gentiles have been forming their own studios lately – Coppola is an excellent example.

Supposedly Jews use Hollywood movies and TV (which is still very Jewish, granted) to push the same stuff – SJWism, anti-White propaganda, reverence for glorious non-Whites, etc. Except Hollywood doesn’t really go along with the Israel-firster stuff, and a number of directors don’t even go along with US imperialism.

And once again, the Gentile directors and producers push all the same themes that the Jewish ones do.  There is a Hollywood elite that has a similar politics shared by both  Jews and Gentiles.

7. Jews make porn. They do. But there are an awful lot of Gentiles making porn now too, right? The industry used to be extremely Jewish in the 1970’s and 80’s – now it is much less so.

But let’s try a thought experiment. All the  US Jews take off for Israel, the moon, Atlantis, wherever. No more Jews. You think the porn industry will go under? Hell no. All the outlets owned by sleazy Jews will be immediately taken over by sleazy Gentiles. Isn’t that obvious? And the Gentiles in porn push all the same sleazy crap: racemixing, Blacks cucking Whites, or whatever.

7. Jews are aggressive, rude, tight, and don’t like non-Jews. A lot of them are. This is particularly the case with the Orthodox and Super Jews like you find in Israel. The more “Jewish” the person is, the more they act in this “Jewy” way. The more assimilated the Jew is, the less they act that way. A lot of Jewish men can definitely be pretty aggressive. The women seem to be less so. After all, they are females.

But that’s not really important. Anyway, exactly how many people actually hate Jews because they are like this? Hell, I know wild Judeophiles who laugh and openly admit that the Jews are obnoxious. And these are people who love Jews.

I’ve also read thousands of antisemites on the web over the years. I haven’t found one yet who actually hated Jews because a lot of them are not real nice. So few if any people are actual antisemites for that reason. I’m sure Jews will call these people antisemites, but they all everyone that.

As far as my opinion goes, at the end of the day, this is just not important. That’s just the petty sociological behavior of a single ethnic group.

Lots of ethnic groups have funny ways of behaving, both good and bad. In many cases, ethnic behavior isn’t important as long as they don’t break the law or seriously disrupt society. Being annoying is nothing. I’m not going to hate some whole race of humans because a lot of them act annoying. That’s a petty issue. It’s hardly a reason to hate a whole ethnic group or race. I imagine most people who feel that Jews act this way feel the same way.

It should be clear now that standard antisemitism is rightwing and has always been rightwing. There’s nothing here for liberals, Leftists, or progressive people.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Some (((Background))) to the (((Jeffrey Epstein Sexual Blackmail Spy Agency Case)))

This is the audio version of Whitney Webb’s excellent article on Mintpress about the (((Jeffrey Epstein))) case. 45 pages if you want to read it instead. A lot of great photos though if you only want to listen to the podcast. The link is worthwhile if only for the photos.

This sort of thing has been going on a long time in the US, and it’s mostly been run by a certain type of (((person))). It started with the elder (((Bronfman))) of the spirits and later airline (Virgin Airlines) fortune in Canada. While the current (((Bronfman))) seems pretty above water, his father was not.

And the spirits fortune got its start with mass bootlegging in Prohibition by the elder (((Bronfman))). Elder (((Bronfman))) was in deep with (((organized crime))) his entire life, in part the Mafia but early on mostly the (((Meyer Lansky crime family))), later of much prominence in Las Vegas.

Early on these people got deeply involved in sexual blackmail of important politicians.

It is little known but the US government made extensive use of the Mafia in World War 2 to help defeat the Axis Powers. After the war, the Mafia exploded in size and influence. For ~10 years after the war, almost all criminal cases against the Mafia were dismissed at the behest of the US government.

Later we move on to an awful man named (((Rosensteil))), another extremely rich man and major (((Organized Crime))) figure. This man later got in deep with J. Edgar Hoover. Both men were gay. (((Rosensteil))) perfected the art of sexual blackmail, specializing in teenage boys.

He threw parties at his house with many VIP’s and politicians in attendance. There were always plenty of teenage boys there. The men in attendance there were all gay or bisexual and made use of these teenage boy prostitutes. The encounters were then recorded and used to blackmail VIP’s and politicians.

(((Rosensteil))) later formed a very close friendship with J. Edgar Hoover. He blackmailed Hoover via these same teenage boy parties, which Hoover often attended, usually dressed in a woman’s dress and introduced to others as “Mary.” Hoover’s homosexuality was a dirty little secret for decades. My grandfather used to say that Hoover was a “fruit,” which was what homosexuals were called back then.

Hoover himself via the FBI also used sexual blackmail to blackmail many VIP’s and politicians, so the FBI was in on this too. Hoover said he was doing it as part of the US government’s war on Communism.

Later during the McCarthy era, a horrible man named (((Roy Cohn))) became Joseph McCarthy’s right hand man. He was even more malicious than McCarthy during the hearings, and his behavior was so awful that he eventually had to be removed from his position. But (((Cohn))) also had deep relations with Hoover and later with Ronald and Nancy Reagan and Donald Trump.

(((Cohn))) was Trump’s mentor and it was via (((Cohn))) that Trump perfected the art of being, well, Donald Trump. (((Cohn))) was also friends with (((Alan Dershowitz))) and other awful human beings. (((Cohn’s father))) was a prominent New York judge who was high up in the local Democratic Party. At that time, the Democratic Party in New York was virtually an annex of Organized Crime.

(((Cohn))) later perfected the art of sexual blackmail via parties at a special light blue painted room in a large well known hotel.

These parties were well-stocked with teenage boys, who were utilized by (((Cohn))), Hoover and many other VIP’s and politicians, including, believe it or not, Cardinal Spellman of the local Catholic Church, one of the most famous Catholic Cardinals in the US. Spellman was also very gay and he protected many homosexual priests who liked teenage boys during his tenure.

Keep in mind that (((Cohn))) was also friends with people like (((Barbara Walters))), Bill Clinton, Roger Stone (another protege of (((Cohn)))), and (((Cohn’s cousin))), a monster named (((Dick Morris))).

As the podcast ends, we learn that (((Jeffrey Epstein))) was simply one of the successors to (((Roy Cohn))) after (((Cohn’s))) death of AIDS in 1986.

As we can see, sexual blackmail has a long history in the US and it has mostly been used by a (((certain group of highly amoral people))). Another shocker that comes through loud and clear with this broadcast the US government’s (and even the FBI’s!) close relationship with Organized Crime spanning decades.

It’s also been very well-known that the CIA has worked closely with Organized Crime groups all over the world since World War 2 as part of its fight against Communism. Yes, the Mafia were an important of the CIA’s effort, but the CIA also infiltrated Organized Crime networks all over the world to enlist them in the war on Communism.

Quite a shocker of a podcast!

N.B. Wow, look at all those (((parenthesis marks))). Never seen so many in my life. Must be a gigantic (((coincidence))).

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Differential Treatment of Captured Enemy Fighters by States and Guerrillas in Recent Wars

Jason: Don’t rightwing governments in Latin America do the same to rebels?

RL: They often execute them after they capture them, correct. Not always but there have been quite a few cases. El Salvador and Guatemala were two of the worst.

Jason: Honestly, both sides do. That’s just the way Civil War is done.

The rebels in Colombia, Peru, El Salvador, and Guatemala did not execute enemy soldiers that they captured. Neither does Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, the PKK or the NPA in the Philippines. It’s mostly states that do that.

The rebels are usually very kind to captured soldiers, even allowing them to go over to their side. Or they release them to the Red Cross. They usually do this as a PR tactic as in look at how brutal this evil government army is, they run death squads and execute captured soldiers. We on the other hand, are complete humanitarians.

However, if the Salvadoran guerrillas captured notorious human rights violators or members of death squads, they would put them on trial and then shoot them.

Well, not always.

In Colombia, the FARC kept them as POW’s. The media called them hostages, but they were really just POW’s. They weren’t treated real great, but they didn’t kill them. Hezbollah and Hamas take them prisoner too, to use in exchanges for imprisoned rebels. The Colombian rebels used their POW’s for the same thing.

Capturing them live and keeping them alive, they are often worth their weight in gold because you can trade one captive Israeli for 1,000 Palestinians in prison. But with Hamas and the FARC, if the government tries to rescue the POW’s, the rebels shoot them.

The Syrian rebels tend to shoot their captives. The Iraqi guerrillas did too. The Iraqis also shot a few captured US soldiers. The Taliban shoot captured government soldiers too. ISIS always shoots their captured soldiers.

In Colombia and Peru, the governments tended to arrest and imprison captured rebels.

Saudi Arabia tended to capture guerrillas, arrest them, re-educate them, and release them. The Syrian government often arrests captured rebels, but it sometimes shoots them too. And the Syrians often kill them after they arrest them. Kurds in Syria and Iran tended to take rebels prisoner, even ISIS guerrillas!

During their civil war last decade, Egypt captured 1,500 guerrillas. They would take them out to the Egyptian desert and tie them to a chair with no food or water. As you can guess, that’s a quick death sentence. Jordan captures guerrillas alive but often badly tortures them.

Iran executes any rebels that it captures. I think Turkey arrests and jails captured PKK people. Early in the Chechen War, the guerrillas used to take Russian soldiers captive. Both sides captured fighters alive in the war in the Donbass in Ukraine. However there were some executions of prisoners by one Ukrainian formation. The rebels then executed any officers they captured from that group of soldiers.

The Indian government tends to shoot any rebels they capture. The Pakistani government sometimes shoots captured guerrillas. I saw a video where they shot dead about 20 of them. It was pretty sickening.

US forces in Iraq and Syria almost always took prisoners, but there were a few cases of execution of captured guerrillas, particularly ISIS captives. Trump just pardoned a Special Forces soldier accused of that, and that guy wasn’t the only one. Special Forces troops are bad when it comes to that, the worst in the US military.

They set up these things called “encounters.” They arrest the rebel, and then they shoot him and put a gun in his hand and say it was a shootout.

I don’t have any information on how governments treat captured guerrillas in Afghanistan, South Sudan, Somalia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Congo, Republic of Congo, Kenya, Tunisia, Libya, or Lebanon.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Homosexuality in the Arab World: A Rundown

Polar Bear: I don’t get why Jews are the most gay-friendly Semites. Was homosexuality intended for the Gentile sheep? Perhaps the overcrowed urban areas in Europe or Jewish ghettos made Jews gayer than Arabs.

I’m not for Muslims throwing gays off rooftops like eagles dropping turtles to break their shell/closet. Maybe that’s the Semites’ natural state though, with the newly imported Jew going against the dominant culture of most the Middle East.

Ha ha, there is more homosexuality there than you think. Gay men who go to the Arab World say it is full of homosexuality.

Syria

I read about a gay man going to Syria, and he said men were hitting on him everywhere. There is still a lot of male homosexuality in Syria. A Grinder search found a lot of men, even in ISIS-occupied Raqqa! However, Syrian police regularly arrest gay men. They beat them up and order them to fuck each other while the cops watch, laugh, and mock them.

Lebanon

Gay male Syrian refugees were found in Beirut where they were living many men to a house and complaining of a lot of homophobia in Lebanon. Hezbollah regularly beats up gay men.

Gay men are regularly murdered in Palestine. No one is ever arrested.

Kuwait

Another gay man went to Kuwait and said the same thing. And he fucked some guy on the beach at night, apparently a regular thing.

Saudi Arabia

A Kuwaiti friend told me that “half of Saudi men are gay” and that this is a big problem in Saudi culture, with the women complaining about it a lot. A man went to Saudi Arabia and said that there were actually gay bars there that were accepted as long as everything was on the down low. Even straight guys walk down the street arm and arm though, so it’s easy for gays to fit in.

Lesbianism is a huge problem at the girls’ schools with love affairs and wild breakups disturbing the environment a lot. Lesbian affairs among the Saudi princesses or sheikhas are quite common.

The Arab World is all about propriety or appearance. For instance a wild out-of-control gay male wedding in Saudi Arabia got busted for getting too loud and out of hand. A number of men were dressed as women at that event. They got prison terms.

Although Saudis supposedly execute gays, not much is done about them in truth.

Oman

The leader of Oman is regularly rumored to be a gay man. Whether he really is or not is not known.

Iraq

In Iraq, gay men are regularly murdered and prosecutions are nonexistent. The Shia in Iraq in particular hate them. There was a controversy when Ayatollah Sistani issued a fatwa that said that the punishment for male homosexuality was death. Shia death squads have been running around murdering gay men in Iraq, often in horrible ways, for some time.

Egypt

In Egypt there is a lot of homosexuality. Gay men go there and say that teenage boys hit on them in the boats you rent on the Nile. One gay man visited an older gay male couple who lived discreetly in Cairo. As long as they kept it on the down low, no one cared.

Up to ~20% of young Egyptian men fuck men. However, only the “faggots” or bottoms are considered gay. Most of the 20% are just straight guys who top.

There were arrests of a large wild gay male party on a boat on the Nile. Once again it had gotten very wild and out of hand. There was a very public and raucous trial in which many of these men were sentenced to a few years in prison. It’s all about propriety. Gay male behavior is permitted as long as it is on the down low. When it gets loud and open, there are crackdowns. You have to keep it on the down low.

Morocco

North Africans are Berbers, not Semites. There is a lot of male homosexuality in Morocco. Novelist William Burroughs and his entourage lived in Tangier for a while, regularly buying teenage boy prostitutes. The locals didn’t like it but nothing was ever done. The writer Paul Bowles also lived in Morocco most of his life, and he lived an open gay life there. No one seemed to care much.

~20% of Moroccan young men fuck guys. Most of them fuck “faggots” or gay men who are bottoms. As long as you just top, you’re not gay.  In both Morocco and Egypt, young straight men do this because access to young women is seriously restricted.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Spot the Language 30

Just no. You’re never getting this one either.You will never get the language, so just give me the general region where it is spoken and if possible the language family this is a part of.

I like to toss out this language when I ask linguist morons who insist that all languages are equally difficult or easy to learn. I ask them,

Is (this language) as easy to learn as Malay? Is Malay as difficult to learn as (this language)?

This language actually has 15,000 speakers. It is spoken in a part of the world where there are many small languages spoken by different tribal groups. They typically have only small numbers of speakers, and in general they are not official languages where they are spoken.

This language is interesting because studies have shown that it is so complicated that even native speakers often make errors when they speak. There is also a possibility that there may be 70,000 possible forms of any verb.

Unfortunately, this language has no official status. For the first five years of education, another language in this group, albeit with many more speakers, is used as the mode of education. After that it switches over to education in the large language of the state which these people are citizens of, which is completely different from this language. As a result, children have a better command of the state language than their native tongue.

Nevertheless, most people over age 35 are fluent speakers of this tongue and it is still the first language of most children. It has two different alphabets, a non-Latin one which is most used and a Latin one, an example of which can be seen below.

Neither are much used and speakers of this language are more literate in the language used in the first five years of elementary school than they are in this language. These languages are known, in addition to their maddening complexity, for having very large inventories of both vowels and consonants. And just to give you a huge hint, yes, the speakers of this language are Muslims, as are almost all speakers of this language family.

Kʼetʼus Hunar

Zewnoƛax zewčʼeyƛax bˤeƛon bocʼin zirun qayno. Sidaquł šigoħno sadaqorno boyno ħukmu: yaqułtow begira bocʼi ħonƛʼār miƛʼeł xizāz xizyo rišʷa yoł. Bˤeƛā begirno qay łˤāł xizāz, bocʼin zirun regirno ħonƛʼār miƛʼeł xizāz. Ɣudod, žedi raynosi beƛʼez reqenyoxor, ziru boqno uhi-ehƛada buq boƛāxzāzarno boqno. Zirus uhi-ehi teqxoy, ɣʷaybi kʼoƛin elār, bocʼi buq bātuzāzarno boqno bikʼin reqenyoƛer, besurno ƛʼarayaw miƛʼi. Miƛʼin bisno bocʼin zirun xizor rutin qʼayƛʼār.

Rizirno cʼidoƛʼor ƛoħon begirno łāƛʼor qay. Kikxogon zewno bočʼikʼxo kʼetʼu. Qayir zewāčʼey rikʷayxo; nešuruxay nełor rikʷayxo zewčʼey. Kʼetʼu, ełor baynosi qay, boqno kʼekʼbikʼa. Kʼekʼbikʼni teqnosi, qay łikin rixerčʼeytow boxin xizor. Bˤeƛā esirno: “Šidā boxā rayirčʼey łin?” Elo didiyƛa žekʼu yoł-ƛin eƛin qayā. Aħugon rikʼin łāxor zirun qayno.

Žedi raynosi kikxor žedā esirno kʼetuq: “Mi šebi?” Di žekʼu yoł-ƛin eƛin kʼetʼā. Šebi že debez ħiroƛʼ esirxo zirā. Tupi ƛin eƛix kʼetʼā. Dicce rˤuƛʼno zirun qayno, amma biyxoy kʼetʼu yāłru, xizyo łˤonon zenzi rikʼin raħira reƛ. Bˤeƛo buqełno bičin ažoz kʼodrexāzay, rołikʼno aħyabin kecno, kʼetʼu tataniłxo zewno cʼidox.

Bˤeƛā kʼekʼrikʼerxo zewno aħyabi. Že rikʷayxoy, kʼetʼuz rokʼƛʼor rayno, že elo aw ƛin, hudu betʼtʼun kʼoƛin elor. Dicce bˤuƛʼzāq bˤeƛqo regin ixiytʼatow qˤaƛubin, boxin ciqxār. Bocʼezno qayizno, ziruzno rokʼƛʼor rayno baysi bāsu ixiytow ħaywan šebin, nełoq že riqičʼey kʼiriłno roxin. Cʼikʼiy reƛ miƛes ƛexun kʼetʼur. ʕoƛiran ɣˤudeł kʼetʼu bišno, racʼno baɣʷace dawla bocʼesno zirusno.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20