As is often the case, my previous SITREP has touched superficially on a number of issues which have raised some eyebrows and, since I have the time, I feel that it might be a good thing to clarify my position on some of them.
A “limited” Russian military option
First, this is clearly a possibility whose main quality is that is falls short of a full-scale ground operation. However, those who advocate for this option often do not really understand what it entails. Let me give you an example by using a grand favorite of Americans: a no-fly zone.
The standard US/NATO practice if to precede the imposition of a no-fly zone by a almost total suppression of enemy air defenses. US/NATO generals always do that because they want to make it look like this is a clean, victim-less operation since, after all, nobody gives a damn about who many “bad guys” die as long as “our boys” come home. The problem with that is that a total suppression of enemy air defenses rarely works. This is particularly true of the Ukraine which holds large stocks of Soviet air defense systems which remain very capable even when old are. I remind you that the super-dooper mega-secret “invisible” and “we own the night” US F-117 stealth fighter bomber was shot down by an export version of the 1960s Soviet 125 Neva/Pechora (SA-3 GOA in the NATO classification) air defense system. The US also lost another two F-117 to the Iraqi Air Defenses (I know that for a fact, but that is officially denied). The Ukraine inherited some very powerful systems like the S-300, S-300V, several versions of the Buk, the Tunguska and the Igla MANPADs. They are not as new as the Russian systems, but they are still way more capable then anything Yugoslavia had. Furthermore, we also know from the war in Georgia that Ukie air defense systems have been modernized by the Ukrainians themselves and, in some cases, with Israeli help. So while the Ukrainian military is more or less a joke, the Ukrainian air defense capabilities are not to be dismissed too easily. In other words, it is one thing to impose an no-fly zone over Libya and a very different thing to try that with the Donbass.
Also, this scenario simply assumes that the Ukies will take a Russian attack sitting like ducks and without taking action. This is naive. There are a lot of very capable senior officers in the Ukrainian military and they know that just sitting and waiting is no option. Does anybody know what they might or might not do if the Russians attack? I sure don’t.
Limited and “no fly zone” types of operations have this way of getting out of control which makes them all very risky.
Finally, while there are people dying every day in the Donbass, there will be many more people dying if Russia intervenes.
Wars are messy and ugly and they typically refuse to proceed according to the plans of those who start them. This is why Russia is doing the right thing by avoiding such a war for as long as it is possible.
Objections to my mentioning the “sads”
This time again I got not only comments but even emails objecting to my reference to the “sads”. My recent post of the Conchita Wurst photo with a bearded man from the Donbass has also irked some readers. Mostly what I am told is this:”stop your anti-sads rethoric or your readers will be upset” (of course, were I use “sad” they use “gay”). My reply is simple:
I never wrote a single word on this blog with the intent to become popular or not to ruffle any feathers. If fact, I don’t give a damn about catering to the modern sociological and cultural trends of the day. I simply write the truth as I see it and in this case it is very simple: what modern society calls “sexual diversity” I consider as psycho-sexual pathologies, personality disorders. Second, I object to the instrumentalization of sexual pathologies for political purposes: sex belongs in the bedroom and it should stay there. And third, I consider that the so-called “West” suffers, among other ailments, of an acute case of psychological, moral and spiritual “AIDS”: an acquired deficiency in its ability to distinguish between what is wholesome, healthy, natural and contributing to the growth of the individual and what has the opposite effect. In Russia there is a comprehensive rejection of this “western societal model” which I fully approve of and I have no intention of catering to the micro-agenda of those single-topic folks who would have me join the passive herd of bystanders who dare not call things by their name. This is why I refuse to use the term “gay” which I consider a ridiculous misnomer. Solzhenitsyn used to speak of a “decline in courage” and I personally see everywhere and in everything. If I was also afraid of offending somebody for simply speaking the truth, I would not be able to look at myself in the mirror. People should come here to get my honest opinion, not to get my support for whatever lifestyles they fancy. The more pressure I will get to shut up or accept the modern dogmas of political correctness, the more I will push back and denounce that kind of pressure for what it is: an attempt to silence the opposition.
The Eurosceptics: Right-wing racists or anti-system progressives?
Let me begin by saying that the only country in Europe whose politics I follow really carefully is France. I do not know what the Eurosceptics are like in other countries. With this caveat in mind, is the French National Front anti-Muslim and racist? The answer is, I believe, yes and no.
Yes, there is most definitively an anti-immigrant core in the FN. This group is represented by Marine LePen who, logically, is also rather Right-wing in her politics. But you have to look beyond that and understand the following:
First, immigration in Europe is, objectively, a real and very serious problem. Denying that makes no sense at all. Second, this problem has been created the capitalist classes who saw in it a way to not only get cheap labor, but also to break the resistance of the European workers and to deconstruct the social state. In other words, from the point of view of the worker in France or German the immigrants and his capitalist bosses are very much part of the same threat to his lifestyle. Add to this toxic brew the Euro-bureaucrats who took it all one big step further and opened the EU to the huge and poor people of Central Europe. For the German or French worker what used to be a problem of Arabs and Africans has now turned into a problem of Poles and Romanians, especially Gypsies. In fact, a lot of the French Arabs from northern Africa now vote with the FN against immigration because they now see their very hard earned benefits melt away under the influx of Romanian and Moldovan immigrants. Likewise, it used to be that Islam was seen as a threat, now it is Muslims who are on the front lines of the fight against thefts and muggings which take place in London or Paris.
So, yes, the first-step of the rejection of the system often goes through an anti-immigrant phase. And some remain stuck there. But the next step is a realization that immigrants and local workers are both equally the victims of the capitalists. This is what Alain Soral’s movement Equality and Reconciliation stands for. This movement is probably 40% Arab or African by now and yet while E&R does not make the political endorsement of any one party, Alain Soral (himself both ex-Communist and ex-National Front) clearly states that the FN is the only non-system party in France. And since E&R is clearly pro-Muslim I think that it is likely that most anti-Muslim voters of the FN could easily turn their position to a pro-Islamic one if they are explained what really happened to Europe and how both local workers and immigrant Muslims have been used and artificially pitied against each other by the plutocrats.
Does the French model hold true for the rest of Europe? I don’t know. But I have no doubt that very voter for the FN is at least a potential member of E&R at which point he/she will automatically drop his/her anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic stance. Does that mean that there are no racists or bigots inside the FN? No, of course not. But even if their rejection of the “system” is initially polluted by racist or secularist bigotry, these elements rapidly disappear as soon as they are explained how misguided these views are and that immigrants and Islam are not a risk for Europe, but a fantastic and possibly life-saving opportunity against the real threat: the plutocracy, globalism, turbo-capitalism and imperialism.
To those who still would not accept that I have a simple peace of advice: study Soral and see what E&R does day in and day out. They are the “proof” of my thesis: the real enemy of the patriots in Europe is not the immigrant, it is the globalist. In his book 1984 Orwell has Winston saying “if there is hope it lies with the proles“. So to paraphrase him I will say this: “if there is hope for Europe it lies with the extremes” (whether Left or Right).
Clarifications about certain issues mentioned in today’s SITREP
As is often the case, my previous SITREP has touched superficially on a number of issues which have raised some eyebrows and, since I have the time, I feel that it might be a good thing to clarify my position on some of them.
You realize that there is no such thing as ‘islam’ and that muslims are very varied and different from one another like any other group is?
You sound as if theres only one ‘islam’ and that all muslims follow this monolith.
There are peaceful muslims and warlike muslims just as there are warlike and peaceful christians. Youre being ridiculous.
“How can people who make more money than the rest of us be parasites?”
Uh, you mean other than the modern financial aristocracy right? Right?
Because the upper class makes shitloads of money and doesnt really do anything for it.
Nora said: “Let’s work together and insist on good laws …”
Good for whom? I assume that Nora means, good for us people who want to be free to live our lives as we see fit, be able to choose what kind of work we want to do and get a decent remuneration for a decent day’s work, have time for leisure and be free to enjoy that time as we wish, and so on. (And, if we have children, to leave them a world better than what we have now.)
But the present laws are, in a sense, already ‘good’ laws. They are good for big business, good for banks, good for big pharma, good for big agro, good for the prison industry, good for the military-industrial-complex, good for the 1%. And they didn’t get that way by accident.
The problem is to cause those ‘good’ laws to be revoked or rewritten so that they benefit us rather than those whom they currently benefit. I doubt that this will happen because we “insist” upon it (even if, somehow, we were able to do that). I’m not even confident that it will happen at all. What’s more likely is that the Anglo-Zionist Empire (and its laws) will slowly decay just like all previous empires (unless it comes to a speedy end as a result of foolish or insane policies). Human societies are formed by individual and collective human thoughts and actions, and humans must inevitably experience (individually and collectively) the consequences. Maybe in time they’ll learn, or maybe not.
But as Margaret Atwood said, “When things are really dismal, you can laugh or you can cave in completely. … If you can laugh, you’re still alive. You haven’t given up yet.”
Dear Friend KC,
@KC : At any rate, you are one more Christian who will not answer the question – a person born with a penis and a vagina. Per God’s law can they have sex with a man, a woman, both or neither. They didn’t choose their physical condition. What advice as a Christian would you give such a person. What would you say to that person if they were your child?
Nature is not perfect. Only thing is perfect is God and no one else. In Iran the Government pays, including physiological / sociological therapy before and after operation for a person to choose one gender. Even plastic surgery is paid for.
Slow Moe said: “You realize that there is no such thing as ‘islam’ …”
Au contraire, Islam is the religion followed by those people (called Muslims) who accept the Koran and the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad or reports of his actions) as the ultimate spiritual authority.
“… and that muslims are very varied and different from one another like any other group is?”
A Muslim is anyone who professes to believe that there is one and only one God and that (the Prophet) Muhammad was (or is) His messenger. Anyone who does not profess these two articles of faith is not a Muslim. There is no in-between.
There are two major branches of Islam, Sunni and Shi’a, and within those two branches there are many interpretations of Islam (including those of Sufis, Wahabis, etc.). Some Muslims are easy-going as regards co-existence with unbelievers, some are fanatics who wish to give all unbelievers a choice between conversion and death, but the majority of Muslims lie between these extremes.
“Youre being ridiculous.” And you obviously are ‘challenged’ when it comes to writing correctly in English.
Ok, so youre confusing you a bit here. This:
“Islam has been trying to conquer Europe ever since the Moors invaded Iberia in the 8th Century. A Turkish attempt to defeat European forces failed at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. The last attempt of the Turks to invade Europe was defeated in the Siege of Vienna in 1683. Europeans have short memories compared to Muslims, and generally assume that Muslims have abandoned the aim of bringing Europe within the sphere of Islam, but that may not be so.
Islam does not recognize the European distinction between church and state. A committed Muslim in the West can allow themselves to submit to the legal systems of the West only as a temporary expedient, until such time as Sharia law is implemented.”
Conflicts with this:
“There are two major branches of Islam, Sunni and Shi’a, and within those two branches there are many interpretations of Islam (including those of Sufis, Wahabis, etc.). Some Muslims are easy-going as regards co-existence with unbelievers, some are fanatics who wish to give all unbelievers a choice between conversion and death, but the majority of Muslims lie between these extremes.”
Especially that important last part
In the first message you sound as if you think all muslims think the same thing, and you use Islam in the singular, as if there is one monolithic Islam and one muslim faith. But then you admit that is not the case, admitting there are many different sects composed of people with an incredibly broad selection of viewpoints.
Is there something I am not understanding here? How can ‘Islam’ want ANYTHING when there are so many sects and so many individuals within Islam?
You mention Iran, but is it not true that Iran forces a specific gender in those cases, without allowing the person to exist as god made them?
If I am mistaken forgive me.
Dear Friend Slow Moe.
Sloe Moe : You mention Iran, but is it not true that Iran forces a specific gender in those cases, without allowing the person to exist as god made them?
If I am mistaken forgive me.
No, you are not mistaken. The Choice is of Individual and not the State. As God has given us the choice to accept or reject Him.
If the individual makes this choice, then the State concurs with it and the pays for the Individual.
There are many more issues with immigration to Europe than you seem to realise.
Sure, plutocrats pit factions of society against eachother for their own gain. And certainly in economic terms the original inhabitants and the newcomers could band together against plutocrats.
But it’s not just about economics. It’s about crime, and very specific types of crime.
Read up on the rape epidemic in Scandinavia and you’ll find that in almost every single case it’s a perpetrator from MENA raping a Scandinavian woman. As for gangrapes, in Sweden there’s ONE such historical example committed by swedish men at a rock festival in 1985. Yet gang-rapes are happening every single week here – committed by immigrants who are culturally biased and see our women as whores and fair game for their lusts.
We want them out! We do not need them at all. They have brought us NOTHING of value. We to a large degree pay for their recidency here and they shit all over us. Believe me, it’s a powder keg ready to explode and we’ll not band happily together with those rapists and mobsters against the plutocrats.
Dear Friend Serendipity,
@ Serendipity : A Muslim is anyone who professes to believe that there is one and only one God and that (the Prophet) Muhammad was (or is) His messenger. Anyone who does not profess these two articles of faith is not a Muslim. There is no in-between.
I believe that there is some terminology is in order.
In Arabic, from verb a noun is made by adding the letter “m” in front of the noun.
Islam is a verb and not a noun, and it means, “to bow”. When you put the letter “M” in front of Islam it becomes “Mislam” or Muslim. Arabic has three vowels and English have five vowels.
Muslim means someone who bows to the Will of God. Everyone is a Muslim, as we all bow to the Supreme Will of God, whether willingly or unwillingly.
Allah and Eloh are same word, and they are both feminine nouns. One can make plural of Eloh by making it Elohim. But Allah cannot be made into plural as it is two words, “Al” and “Ilah” Again, Arabic has three vowels and English have five vowels. What is “Al”, it is the definite article “The”. It is same as “Ha” in Hebrew. Thus, Al-Ilah (Allah) can be written in Hebrew as Ha-Eloh.
In Islam there are 140,000 Prophets, Prophet Adam (as) being the first Prophet and Prophet Mohammad (saws) being the last Prophet.
Thus, the two Testimonies are negation and then affirmation:
1. There is no Ilah but Al-Ilah.
2. Mohammad is His abd (worshiper, servant, slave ….) and His Prophet.
OR : How About This:
1. There is no Ilah but Al-Ilah.
2. Moses is His abd (worshiper, servant, slave ….) and His Prophet.
They are not all the same. There is a community among the People of the Book (Sabaeans, Jews and Christians) who are upright. They recite God’s signs throughout the night, And they prostrate. They believe in Allah and the Last Day, and enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and compete in doing good. They are among the righteous. You will not be denied the reward for any good thing you do. Allah knows those who guard against evil. (Quran : Surah (3) Al ’Imran, 113-115)
Note: You in above, is the mixed group plural.
Not let the “Liver Eaters” tell you differently. BTW, the people who migrate to West and USA, are not very educated and they leave their home (countries) for better prospects, but they leave bitter.
BTW, Al-Ilah in small letters al-ilah (allah).
OMG, I forgot about them! Dang. You’re right of course. Oops.
I really do believe (maybe I just *need* to believe it, but still, I really do believe) that if we could somehow get past Identity Politics/Political Correctness/etc. and recognize we’re all in the same boat and the 1% is trying to push us completely overboard and take it too, then maybe we could start stopping them. But we can’t do that when we’re still caught up in the great left-right divide; we’ve got to make common cause.
I’m not speaking about our (deliberately-engendered) Culture Wars here, but in most other societies tolerating homosexuality, they do have roles to play, whether helping nurture, perform rituals, act as shamans
I agree. Absolutely. I am not calling homosexuals parasites. I should have taken more time composing this comment.
Homosexual behaviour exists in all mammals. This demonstrates that it is advantageous on some level. You described some of the possibilities.
By parasites I mean bullies, exploiters anf thieves who take what does not belong to them. Whether in ancient Greece, Rome or our current civilization, weaponized sexuality directed against both men and women is a feature. Like the constant flashes of the bearded man, they are meant to attack the psychological integrity of those who find this sort of thing repulsive. In this way masculine men are attacked, humiliated and deconstructed. The same thing happens to women on an even greater scale in our society.
A defensive response is justified to any aggression but as I tried to make clear in my post, an attack on a person who is different is unjustified. The appropriate targets are the parasites who are using it against others, like the way advertising is used to deconstruct the minds of our children. I have the right to confront this and I will.
A few more things. Most incidents of gay bashing are perpetrated by closeted and/or self loathing homosexuals unable to deal with their own compulsions. Masculine men usually aren’t threatened by homosexuals unless they become aggressive. This is not how these crimes are portrayed in the media which seeks to assign blame, again, as a weapon.
How do you respond to unwanted aggressive sexual advances from anyone, man or woman? There is a point when such behaviour crosses a line and ought to be confronted. If a man or woman makes unwanted advances towards me, at first I will say no thank you. Next I will say piss off. Finally I will become angry, aggressive and even violent if violence is perpetrated against me.
Neither man nor woman should allow themselves to be sexually bullied by anyone under any circumstances. My point is that bullying behaviour, whether sexual or otherwise, is a feature to the parasitically minded. We have to seperate tolerance from a willingness to meekly accept and even excuse the aggression of anyone. LGBT people don’t get a pass.
In the European elections the so called right wing parties had success and thus the commentators are saying that it was the disillusionment of the electorate with European beaurocracy and interference in the national politics that the parties like French national front and ukip got this vote.
The commentariat’s assertion that all these right wing parties reflected the same sort of agenda and aspiration is completely wrong.
The French national front is basically a nationalist party which is very anti-imperialist too –it opposed French and nato terrorism in Syria, Libya and Iraq.
The same ukip which talks about nationalism and control away from big beaurocracy is very much opposed to nationalism of the Scots and Scottish referendum because it really stand for English pirate nationalism and nothing else. It wages war ,like all English-sc—um bags, on all European and other races.
But the ukip is very much pro English imperialism that it opposing European stems from this English are waging war on all races European and otherwise and ukip is one of those English sc—um bags. Ukip never opposed imperialistic war being waged by evil uk controlled usa-what it opposes is that the English lumpen proletariat or otherwise called white trash has not yet benefitted from those imperial wars-for example Iraq and Libyan terrorism by english have not benefitted the English white trash so much as it used to happen when the imperialism provided these white trash with job either in uk or colonies. So it is this frustration with no more loot coming their way that ukip opposes.
It does not oppose that england lives off stolen wealth from the third world and other countries like east Europeans -that england destabilises other nations so that English installed elites in those nations are forced to bring their stolen money to London and british banks from where it is not going to move anywhere else. This money laundering the English call service industry. That loot creates extreme poverty in those affected nations whence the masses have to migrate and these English sc—bags who have looted those nations in the first place ,object those immigrants coming to england though their stolen wealth is welcome ! they aslo oppose euro because though thieving English print money their controlled rating agencies give them triple A and thus cheating their debtors.
Euro becomes their competitors.
Besides they don’t want Germany to remain prosperous hence all propaganda against and working Germans by the parasite English race. In this they have support from the Zionists in uk and elsewhere.
Don’t forget that Putin jailed Khodorkovsky, one of the many Oligarchs who had raped Russia’s resources after Glasnost, nationalised his oil and gas fields and paid off the debts of the Russian Federation in 5 years. Just before his arrest Khodorkovsky wired all his money to Jacob Rothschild who runs the corrupt City of London, without proper financial regulation, so that 60% of the UK GDP is fraud.
Cecil von Renthe-Fink is a mere footnote in the pages of history. A Prussian aristocrat who joined the Nazi Party in 1939, Renthe-Fink however has a claim to fame. In August 1943, he drafted a memorandum proposing a European economic union with a common central bank and currency. But there was a caveat – if the new union was to be a success, Britain must be kept out because according to the German diplomat it was “the continent’s ancient enemy”.
Today several nations, especially Russia, would agree with that assessment. With 66,000 of its nationals on the run from justice, and a large number of them having found asylum in Britain, Russia is the most affected by Britain’s policies.
Russians are stupid to trust English in any way not realising that English parasites are their biggest and persistent enemy which must be destroyed.
just after ~30 minute mark, interviewer asking question…
Jane Goodall says “…we’ve never seen anything remotely like homosexuality in chimpanzees… in the wild…” Also mentions wild cattle and dogs.
Interviewer definitely has agenda going.
Interviewer then confuses conditioning, culture and genetics/evolution.
There is no gay gene. It’s conditioning. And it’s dysfunctional. You can tell by a variety of statistical, demographic data, that it really is dysfunctional and suboptimal.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of fake science, propaganda, agendas, etc. out there. Science is for sale.
@Can animals be ‘degenerate’? Especially when they are our closest relative after Chimpanzees?
Yes, and the Bonobos are the case in point.
BTW, why all the advocates of “gay” life style shy away to talk about the clear relation with scatology, scatophagy, urolagnia?
“They are the “proof” of my thesis: the real enemy of the patriots in Europe…”
An interesting read about Euro region problems, by Bernard Connolly;
Rotten Heart of Europe: The Dirty War for Europe’s Money.
Although this book was written before the Euro came out, it discusses what is going on behind the scenes, and continues today.
There is a problem with the book, but there is enough good in it to get considerable insight the into the Eurozone. And why the problems will continue.
Sorry, I should have put this here, look at the reviews, to get an idea of the books content:
“The appropriate targets are the parasites who are using it against others.”
Yes. But homosexuality in ancient Greece was really about dominance (add in anger/aggression and you’ve got not *just* sexual abuse towards women but also, oh, Abu Ghraib and what was done to Khadafi). There is an in-your-face flamboyance and exhibitionism in current gay culture that I too find very off-putting, but I don’t know that that’s always been the case. Also, there is a real possibility that, with the normalization of gay marriage — and that’s happening whether people like it or not — ordinary gays will settle down and become, well, just ordinary people also embarrassed by the flamboyance/Gay Pride Parades, etc. It’s kind of like each ethnic group here starting out trying to assimilate, then re-discovering their roots/pride, and then becoming as white-bread as everyone else. Not necessarily a smooth trajectory but a common one.
What I’m really getting at is I don’t think it’s just gays themselves who are responsible for this; I think they’ve been fostered and encouraged — while in the process of standing up and demanding rights to which they are entitled (like physical safety, employment, housing, etc.) — by the various Masters of Discourse (media, pols, clannish intellectuals, etc.) to divide us into yet more Identity Groups and thereby divided against ourselves.
Totally agreed on the gay-bashing but take it a step further — why are these guys self-loathing? Because they’ve been taught their drives are wrong, they try to play it straight (pun unintended but hey, it works), and can’t. Back when I vented before, I said I’d never known a heterosexual marriage ruined by gay marriage. Well, I haven’t, but I’ve known women who married guys who were gay but either not ready to admit it to themselves, or trying desperately not to be. Pretty awful situations for everyone involved, especially since a couple of them really did love each other. And yes, I blame the media for a lot of it, but fire-and-brimstone religious teachings (often also by closeted gays) don’t help either. And for all the gay pride, etc., most gays will tell you, if you know them well enough, it’s just not a choice they ever would have made.
But when you’re talking about unwanted sexual behavior, as a woman I have a bit of a different perspective. And it’s based in large part on my size — I can certainly hold my own verbally but no way can I, my daughters or granddaughters fight off someone twice or three times our size. So it’s not a matter of *us* “allowing” anything — sexual aggression is wrong, period, gay, straight or anything else. I.e., NO ONE gets a pass.
“Statistic prove that Gay men are 7 times more likely to molest a child than a normal man.” Provide the study, please. The fact that Catholic priests targeted boys makes them pedophiles — same with the priests who targeted girls. And you’re calling someone a bigot for claiming gay people can be honest, honorable, ethical and caring? That is exactly the same as someone who simply “knows” that all blacks are stupid and violent, and is enraged that a black person could call them on their racist beliefs. (hint: being convinced that all members of ANY group act in a certain negative way, quite different from members of one’s own group, is a pretty good working definition of bigotry; apply it to racial issues and Yes. That. Is. Racism.)
You seem extremely hostile to gays, both in general and really, insultingly, to Lisa Mallon. It’s really something you might want to examine more closely.
There are plenty places in the US where the perpetrators of violent crimes against homosexuals are quite deliberately neither sought nor brought to trial. It happens all the time. Prosecutors choose who to prosecute.
Do you know how many violent crimes against heterosexuals the Prosecutors choose to not prosecute?
I don’t think I can count that high!
But I’d be willing to bet that in just about any location, skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, money and status are major factors in the decisions made, whether we’re talking victims or perpetrators. Also whether the prosecutor is up for election any time soon. “Justice” ? You’ve got to be kidding!