Saturday, November 17, 2018

"Unintended Consequences" and deeper meanings


I'd been planning to follow up on they amazing election mess in Florida (gee, Democrats cheat on elections?  Who knew?) when I came across this chillingly brilliant article from "Emmanuel", 11/14/18:

{ BLACK MINISTER ASKS “WHAT IF WHITES STRIKE BACK AGAINST RACE-BAITERS AND RACE-WARMONGERS?”
by Mychal S. Massie

It would serve race mongers well to consider that even a docile old dog will bite you if you mistreat it often enough and long enough. Tangential to same is the reality of the “laws of unintended consequences."

I’m tired of seeing, reading, and hearing white people blamed for everything from black boys not being able to read to whites being privileged because of the color of their skin. If I am tired of these Americans being used as scapegoats to further the agenda of race mongers, then it is a sure bet that those being unjustly vilified are especially weary of same.

his isn’t 1860 and it certainly isn’t 1955. There are no slaves in America and there are no Jim Crow laws dictating access based on skin color. Specific to that point it is time to remind people like Obama, Al Sharpton, and the New Black Panther Party that the racial discord they are fomenting can become the harbinger of their own peril.

Obama foments racial unrest and a racial divide to further his neo-Leninist agenda. Sharpton foments racial unrest for personal gain. The New Black Panther Party foments racial hostilities and the demonization of whites in the foolish belief they can bring about a Western version of apartheid where blacks rule.

Too many blacks have lost sight of the fact that it was Africans who were responsible for the enslavement of other Africans. It was war, invasion, conquest, and various caste systems that contributed to slavery. And although one would be hard-pressed to believe it from the invented myths that masquerade as fact, persons of color were not the only slaves.

From Genesis to the Sudan of today, slavery has been a staple around the world. And it should be noted that given the first opportunity in America, the former slaves of color became owners of those whose skin color matched theirs.

But unlike the rest of the world, America had the good sense and decency to end slavery. In America, there is no caste system, and yet at every turn we are bombarded with how bad blacks have it because of whites and how unfair the so-called “white system” is to blacks.

All people, including those who are here illegally, have it better in America than they would have it anywhere else on earth. And yet blacks are encouraged to blame their ills on whites.

Therein the “laws of unintended consequences” come into play. America has shed the blood of her people on her own soil to ensure the freedom of all Americans. Americans joined hands with blacks to end Jim Crow. And, to the detriment of all concerned, political correctness and guilt have contributed to discrimination against whites vis-a`-vis race-based affirmative action initiatives.

Still the bastardization of whites continues. White law enforcement personnel are labeled racist for defending themselves against black criminals, especially when bad things happen to the black criminals.

To put it succinctly, the single greatest non-biblical truth today is that many times the majority of blacks are their own worst enemies. Many blacks go through life with a chip on their shoulder and bad attitudes toward whites. Many blacks growing up in dysfunctional single parent or no parent homes are loathe to realize that their lives are the result of bad decisions made by their families that adversely affect their adulthood – its not the white man.

But as I said, there is a thing called “the laws of unintended consequences.” To that end, sooner or later a pendulum reaches its arc and starts to swing back in the other direction.

How long before white people, many of whom are growing increasingly resentful at being falsely maligned, decide to respond in kind? How much longer will whites stand by and allow the likes of Sharpton and Obama to continually cast them as racist villains?

If the 1915 silent movie, The Birth of a Nation by D.W. Griffith, which depicted blacks as unintelligent and sexual predators of white women, (which was a lie) gave rise to the resurrection of the Ku Klux Klan, what can we expect to be brought about by the heathen behavior of many blacks today?

Many blacks are quick to attack those of us who condemn the untoward, barbaric behavior of some blacks. They curse us for not glossing over their behavior and for not engaging in “blame whitey.” But if a phony movie was able to give rise to at least two generations of condemnation of blacks, what will the in-your-face belligerent hostilities so many of them exhibit today ultimately result in?

America has figuratively bent over backward to assuage its perceived guilt but for many blacks that is not good enough. They accuse and self-alienate but do nothing to incorporate the greatness of America into their lives.

How much longer will America allow blacks to vilify those who have done them no harm – even as blacks attack, terrorize, and condemn those who truly do just want to get along?


( SIDE NOTE FROM MATT DUNCAN, Editor:)
In 2013 the US Census Bureau estimated there are 45,003,665 African Americans in the United States, meaning that 14.1% of the total American population of 316.1 Million is Black. To put things in perspective, the US Census Bureau estimated that White Americans are the racial majority, with a 77.7% share of the U.S. population.

No one with any shred of intelligence wants to see a race war break out in neighborhoods across America. Why? Because MANY innocent men, women and children would lose their lives at the hands of the thuggery that was witnessed in Ferguson, Baltimore, Milwaukee, New Orleans and abroad.

I realize that math isn’t a strength for a lot of people but those on the left who seem hell-bent on inciting a race war need to take a few steps back and realize that numbers are not on their side. }


DETAIL:  I recently saw a restored version of the original "Birth of a Nation", and studied purely as film it deserves its standing as a classic.  Never mind the corny plot and bigoted attitudes;  there are cinematic techniques invented in this film that have been the foundation of film every since.  Perhaps precisely because of its lack of color and sound, the camera-work itself became amazingly precise and expressive.

There's one particular shot which is not only worth the price of the film but which actually counteracts the whole theme of the plot, and I wish I knew the camera-man who composed it.  If it was Griffith himself, then he was a lot more conflicted on the subject of race than most people know.

It's during the scene where the black Union soldier is stalking the white teenage virgin with Evil Intent while she innocently picks flowers.  As he pushes further through the flowering fruit-trees, there's a moment where his head is framed by flowers.

And right there is a long motionless close-up of his smooth and gleaming coal-black face, surrounded by feathery stars of small snow-white flowers, which is stunningly beautiful.  His face isn't gross and ugly;  he's actually quite a handsome man.  His expression isn't lustful and cruel;  it's intent and thoughtful.  If the shot was meant to symbolize menace and intent-to-deflower the girl, then it backfires completely.

The contrast with the next shot, which is a long-distance scene of the soldier clumsily galumphing up to the girl and grabbing her wrist, is so extreme that they might have belonged to two different movies.  In fact, nowhere in the rest of the film is there a shot as good as that.

The one place in early film where I've seen a shot comparable to that one is in another black-and-white classic, which is almost soundless: "The Jazz Singer".  It's during the "decision" scene, when the breakaway-secular Jewish singer is about to perform for his big opening night when his fiance comes to his dressing-room to tell him that his father is dying, and only wants to hear his son sing the "Kol Nidre" one more time.  The singer has to decide which he'll go sing for: his secular success or his family's need.  There's another extreme close-up as he chooses his family.  "It's the call of my blood," he explains solemnly -- and his face is painted a uniform coal-black as he says it.  And by the way, the first song sung on film is not "Mammy";  it's "Kol Nidre".

Considering how much meaning is compressed into those two shots, I have to wonder if the same camera-man composed them both.


--Leslie <;)))><  






Sunday, November 4, 2018

Blasphemy Laws and Asia Bibi


First understand that Pakistan included laws against "blasphemy" in its legal code when it was partitioned off from India, and became its own country, in 1947.  Its first such law defined "blasphemy" as: "Uttering of any word or making any sound or making any gesture or placing of any object in the sight with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person" and had a penalty of one year in prison, or a fine, or both. Note how similar this is to "Hate Speech" laws in the US and other Western countries. 

At the time, the population of Pakistan was 85% Muslim and 15% everything else: Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and Jewish.  Over the next several decades, the Muslim majority demanded more and more elaborate blasphemy laws, which somehow were always enforced on the minority-religion populations.  Those minority-religion populations have been shrinking ever since.  The Jews were the first to see the handwriting on the wall and move out;  today their descendants live in the U.S., Canada, Israel and India, and there are just 745 Jewish families left in Pakistan.    Buddhists went next;  there are fewer than 1900 of them left in the country.  The Hindus fared better, probably because of India right next door.  HIndus comprise nearly 2% of the population, which makes Hinduism the 2nd largest religion in Pakistan.  However, at least 5000 Hindus per year emigrate to India -- frankly to avoid legal discrimination and harassment from the Muslims.

In the past decade or so the blatantly Muslim government of Pakistan has turned on the Christians, who make up the third-largest religion in the country.  In 2005 there were 2.5 million Christians, or 1.6% of the total population.  Then the "blasphemy" laws changed again, making "any insult against the Prophet" punishable by death.  Assorted Muslims began using the "blasphemy" laws quite freely -- against Christians -- as excuse to swindle property, shut down business rivals, or excuses to riot and kill Christians in increasingly large lots.  

Now, for the past 20 years or so, the Pakistan govt. has divided pretty evenly between three agendas: the Jihadists, who side with the Taliban and want to hurry up the Jihadist takeover of the world;  the pro-western faction, which sees better rewards and more money in siding with the western democracies;  and the opportunists, who play off one side against the other for the money.  This explains why Pakistan didn't complain too much about the US sending troops into Pakistan to take out Osama Bin Laden, as well as why the govt. was sheltering Bin Laden in the first place.  

 So let's look back to June, 2009.  A group of women -- one Christian, Asia Bibi, and the rest Muslim -- were harvesting fruit when, according to the BBC,a row broke out over a bucket of water.  "The women said that because she had used a cup, they could no longer touch it, as her faith had made it unclean.  Prosecutors alleged that in the row which followed, the women said Asia Bibi should convert to Islam and that she made offensive comments about the Prophet Muhammad in response.  She was later beaten up at her home, during which her accusers say she confessed to blasphemy. She was arrested after a police investigation."

She then spent the next 9 years in prison, going through appeals against the death penalty.  Finally her appeal reached the Pakistani Supreme Court.
"In Wednesday's ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted her, saying that the case was based on unreliable evidence and her confession was delivered in front of a crowd 'threatening to kill her'." But they didn't let her out of prison.
Meanwhile, her husband is pleading for asylum -- for himself, and Bibi, and their two children -- in the UK, US or Canada, saying that innocent or no, they were all in great danger if they stayed in Pakistan.  Why?  Because (BBC): "Her acquittal sparked violent protests, and the government has now agreed to try to stop her leaving the country.  On Saturday, her lawyer, Saif Mulook, fled Pakistan, saying he feared for his life."
In other words, the pro-Taliban Jihadist faction is threatening riots, showing its muscle, to intimidate the other two factions.  It's not at all worried about what the rest of the world will think about the end result of "blasphemy laws".  
So, what can the western nations -- and particularly the US -- do about this?  For one thing, it can counter-intimidate the other two factions by threatening to cut off the money.  Sanctions yes, foreign aid no, until Bibi and her whole family are safe -- probably in Canada.  One thing the Jihadists love as much as conquest is money.  The Trump administration has been steadily cutting off the Jihadists' money supply, and the lack is beginning to be felt.  Yes, the Jihadists -- and the other Pakistani factions -- would happily sell a Christian family for money.
And if the US turns the money-spigot back on, once Bibi and family are safe, well, we can always turn it back off again when the Pakistani govt. performs its next atrocity.

--Leslie <;)))><  





Wednesday, October 24, 2018

The Political Theatre Gets Violent -- Almost


Today's headlines are full of the five bombs mailed to prominent Democrats -- and a former CIA official at CNN's office -- all of which were caught by their own security teams.  The bombs were apparently real, but didn't go off, not one of them.  As an old revolutionary myself, I find this intriguing.  The bombs were obviously made by a professional, with plenty of experience in explosives and demolition -- but wouldn't such a professional have considered that nowadays high-profile targets do have expert security teams?  That in itself makes me wonder, as does the timing: early in Election Week.

And of course the Democrats and their sympathetic media are blaming it all on Trump, with his "violent and divisive rhetoric" -- not to mention his accusing them of using "divisive rhetoric".  And of course that's true;  Maxine Waters -- one of the abortive targets -- has made herself famous over the past several weeks for noisily urging all good Parlor Pinks to go out and harass Republicans at home and in public -- which a lot of them then did, as plenty of videos on YouTube can show.

I'm not ruling out to possibility that this bomb-scare could be a covert Democrat-planned False Flag attack.  The gods know, I've seen them before.

And I'm not the only one with suspicions:

Mainstream Media Ignores Poignant Piece of Bomb Maker’s Puzzle



In their never-ending 
quest to demonize conservatives, the corporate media is willfully ignoring an important piece of the puzzle.

Published
 
on
 
By
   





There is a major point being overlooked by the mainstream media during today’s attempted bombing spree of political entities.
Television’s corporate media are focusing heavily on the Trump-connection in todays’ incidents, repeatedly reminding the world that all of those affected by the delivery of these dangerous devices are people who have criticized Donald Trump in the past.  The problem with this logic is that it is completely one-sided, at least according to reality.
We cannot forget that men such as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul were also major critics of the President at one point.
The insinuation that these bombings are aimed solely to those who oppose the President isn’t the full picture here, and I’ll explain.

First, those who have so far been targeted are not just democrats or liberals.  They are globalists, each and every one of them.  For George Soros to be targeted first, and then this slew of other students of his, is a substantial piece of the puzzle that few in the corporate media are willing to talk about.  The bomber or bombers has not gone after your everyday democrats, or even the democratic socialists who oppose Trump.

They’ve spared Bernie Sanders and Alexnadria Ocasio-Cortez, and that is significant.
Also, every one of these devices had the same phony return address:  That of former DNC head Debbie Wassermann Schultz.
CNN reports that the package bombs had the (fake) return address of "Debbie Wasserman-Schultz," and there was a package that was addressed to Eric Holder, but it had the wrong address and was sent "back" to Wasserman-Schultz's office in FL, prompting evacuation of her office.
— Peter Sterne (@petersterne) October 24, 2018

What does this mean?
Schultz was the DNC head fired for her role in stealing the 2016 from Bernie Sanders and allowing Hillary Clinton to effectively take over the organization.  She was blackballed for her role in the process, and shunned from politics as a whole.  Democratic citizens were furious with Schultz’s actions, believing that they shattered the sanctity of the democratic process in favor of pushing Clinton, a known globalist and friend of George Soros, over Bernie Sanders – a man that many believed had a better shot of defeating Trump in a general election.

By putting Debbie Wassermann-Schultz down as the “return address” on these bombs, this terrorist could very easily be attempting to make a political point about how these democrats and globalists have completely ruined the idea of American liberty.  Schultz annihilated the political process on the left, and essentially handed the presidency to Donald Trump by pushing forward with the nomination of Hillary Clinton – a candidate who was not only flawed, but polling poorly against Trump at the time of their scheme’s hatching.

Essentially, Schultz ruined the democrats’ chances to ever regain the trust of the American people.  These devices, with their premeditated return addresses, could be certainly be attempting to reiterate that point on a national scale.
Remember folks, these bombs have not been proven to be targeting anti-Trump forces.  All we know now is that they are targeting globalist democrats with a return address belonging to the woman who single-handedly sabotaged the entire DNC in 2016.
--David West
Was that the equivalent of the severed horse's head in "The Godfather"?  
The devil is in the details, and there are a lot of smoky details here.  I doubt if they'll be revealed before the end of Election Week, but then, a lot of voters are suspicious already.  And then there are all the voters who have voted already, early, by mail.  
If there's anything the 2016 election taught us, it's that the voters are not so manipulable or predictable as the experts think.

--Leslie  <;)))><

(P.S. Sorry about the ad below;  I couldn't get rid of the damn thing.)   








Monday, October 22, 2018

Pre-Election Theater: The Caravan


It should be obvious by now that the migrant caravan coming up from Honduras was carefully set up to embarrass Trump, just as the election -- starting with the early/mail-in ballots -- is beginning.  Who did the manipulating is pretty obvious too.  There are small videos -- plainly taken with personal cell-phones, and therefore unverifiable, but telling -- which show what appear to be well-dressed Honduran agents paying lots of not-so-well-dressed Honduran young men to get on the trucks and join the "caravan".  The interesting part of the videos, and of professional news-media videos too, is that the overwhelming majority of those "migrants" are military-age men.  If, as the migrants claim, they're fleeing from violence at home, then where are the women, children, and old people?  Yes, the DNC does have enough supporters with very deep pockets to outright hire some 7000 men to march all the way through Mexico to assault the US border.  After all, a similar invasion a few months back gave the Democrats and the media lots of shame-shame fodder to use against Trump and, by extension, the entire GOP.  Other than that, the welcome the first "asylum invasion" got actually did discourage real illegal immigrants from jumping the border for several months.  This caravan is a clear political set-up.  The number of American pro-immigrant Leftist demonstrators who have gone down to Mexico precisely in order to join the caravan is pretty clear proof of that.

As the target of this campaign, with this little time left, just what can Trump -- or any of the US govt. do?

Well, he has already tried getting the Mexican govt. to stop the invasion, but Mexico had been notoriously bad about that, and the caravan is making its way across Mexico without much interference.  He's likewise threatened to cut off the foreign-aid funds to Honduras, Guatemala and every other country involved, and while this will hurt their pockets next year, it isn't doing much right now.

So he's promising to call up the US military, and the Democrats are already howling "unconstitutional!" -- which is ironic coming from them. 

But is it really unconstitutional to call up the army to stop an invasion?  Invasion is exactly what this is.   

Note that the Mexican, Honduran and Guatemalan police that have made some effort to stop the caravan claim to have caught some "middle-eastern" members of the so-called Honduran group, which is excuse enough.  The US is, after all, fighting Jihadists in the middle-east.  That makes illegal and covert "middle-eastern" border-jumpers agents of an enemy power in war-time. 

That's excuse enough.

So, regardless of how the media will slant and howl, the best thing those US troops can do is wait at the border, catch everyone who tries to sneak across, and round them up.  They can do it with non-lethal weapons such as stunners or gas.  Round up the whole 7000+ of them, shove them in planes and carry them off to....  Where?

Well, both Peru and Argentina have shown willingness to take them in, and they can be paid off to do it with the foreign-aid money that used to go to Honduras,  El Salvador, Mexico, et al.  When the assorted Left bawls about a "humanitarian crisis", point out -- loudly -- that transporting the illegals to someplace that's willing to take them in is a damned sight more "humanitarian" than shooting the invaders outright.  Above all, keep on calling them invaders!

Sure, sure, they insist that they're only coming here to get safety, work, and "a better life for themselves".  Well, all invaders are trying to get a better life for themselves!  The Mongol hordes who swept into China, leaving pyramids of skulls in their wake, were only trying to get a better life for themselves.  The original Spanish Conquistadors who marched into Central and South America, slaughtering the Indians as they went, were only trying to get a better life for themselves.  The Nazis who rolled into Poland in 1939, thus setting off World War Two, were only trying to get a better life for themselves.  Nobody makes the effort to invade someone else's land to get a worse life for themselves! 

Yes, this is an invasion --- part of an invasion that's been going on for a long time -- and we should call it by its rightful name.  Being honest about the situation should win Trump a few brownie-points in the election at least.

--Leslie <;)))><   


Monday, October 15, 2018

Racism for Power and Hypocrisy

--Leslie <;)))>< 

I try to avoid quoting other writers in my blog (I mean, this is supposed to show off my writing, you know),  but every now and again I come across something I've just got to pass on -- like this piece by Roger Simon.  He's had so many of the same experiences and observations I have that it's like watching a home movie.  As the political mud-slinging in the media grows to a frenzied pitch with the approach of the mid-term election, it helps to see a head-clearing statement like this one.  Though written more than three years ago, it's absolutely applicable today.

"Ninety percent of the racism in America today comes from the Democratic Party and the Left.  They live off it and exploit it.  It is unconscionable to the degree they do this, ruining the lives and futures of the very people they say they are helping in the process.
"I am uniquely positioned to say this because I spent most of my life on the Left and was a civil rights worker in the South in my early twenties. I was also, to my everlasting regret, a donor to the Black Panther Party in the seventies.

"So I have seen this personally from both sides and my conclusion is inescapable.  The Left is far, far worse. They are obsessed with race in a manner that does not allow them to see straight.  Further, they project racism onto others continually, exacerbating situations, which in most instances weren't even there in the first place.  From Al Sharpton to Hillary Clinton, they all do it.

"Barack Obama is one of the worst offenders in this regard.  Recently, in reaction to the horrid actions of the deranged, but solitary racist Dylann Root, the president claimed racism is in our DNA.

"How could he possibly utter such nonsense and who was he talking about?  The majority of Americans are from families that came to this country after slavery existed.  Many of those were escaping oppression of their own.  In my case my family was fleeing  the pogroms of Eastern Europe.  Many of the members of my family who stayed behind ended up gassed in Auschwitz or exterminated in Treblinka.

"Is Obama telling me that racism is in my DNA?  What a wretched and insulting statement.  If he means that, he should tell it to me face-to-face.  If he does, I will tell him what I think.  The racial situation in this country has gotten decidedly worse since he took office.  And he is a great deal to blame.  Ever since the beer summit it was obvious he was disingenuous and harmful on the subject of race, seeking to stir the pot when it was actually empty or nearly.  

"His claim that if he had had a son he would look like Travyon Martin was ridiculous and self-serving in the extreme.  Barack Obama is a product of the fanciest private school in Hawaii and his children go to Sidwell Friends, the fanciest school in D. C.  He takes vacations on Oahu and his wife parties in Switzerland. He had as much in common with Trayvon as I do with the queen of Spain. 

__Roger Simon"

Saturday, October 6, 2018

The Kavanaugh Mud-Wrestling Contest

So Kavanaugh was finally confirmed for the Supreme Court by a vote of 50 to 48, thus ending one of the worst mud-slinging campaigns in US political history.  Nobody came clean out of this one.

It was understood from the start that the Democrats would oppose any candidate Trump proposed, for fear of having a "conservative" SCOTUS for the next 20 years or more, and of course in revenge for the GOP holding up Obama's judiciary choices, but in this case the partisan tactics reached the downright disgusting level -- enough to p!ss off a sizable number of the voters.  What was Maxine Waters thinking when she ran around encouraging Antifaa and BLM, whipping up crowds to publicly harass elected officials -- and their staffs, and their families, in the hopes that this would pressure Congress into voting her way?  Did congressional aide Jackson Cosko think that broadcasting the private health information of GOP senators would be glossed over as legitimate "free speech"?  Did Senator Feinstein really believe that sitting on Dr. Ford's accusation for months, only to spring it just days before the scheduled confirmation vote wasn't an obvious political manipulation?  Now of course I could be biased, having hated Feinstein ever since she rode to her big career break over the body of Harvey Milk, but the way she's behaved during this whole campaign is really ugly.

Now, to be sure, the worst witness against Kavanaugh turned out to be himself;  in his testimony he lost his cool bigtime, ranting and whining like the very prep-school drunken frat-boy he's accused of being -- and he provably lied to Congress.  In a less ferociously partisan squabble, those would have been reasons enough to vote him down.  (I'm thinking of Bill Clinton telling Congress "I did not have sex with that woman").  The  problem was that the Democrats had likewise dug their own graves with their own mouths so thoroughly that Congress couldn't trust them -- or their supposed voter support --either.  The Democrats' antics actually made Kavanaugh look better by comparison!

Consider, there were holes and glitches in Dr. Ford's testimony that were never addressed, and should have been.  If the Democrats had succeeded in stretching out the investigation -- hopefully until after the election, as they wanted to -- all of these might have been exposed, to the detriment of the Dems' post-election hopes.  It could also be that the Dems have reason to worry about their expected "blue wave" come election time;  after all, they're already spreading rumors that Russian and North Korean hackers are going to "steal the election for Trump" (on what evidence?), which implies that they're making excuses in advance for a bad loss. 

Now the part of Ford's story that I find most intriguing is that at the age of 15 she managed to fight off a drunken 17-year-old frat-boy.  This implies that, assuming the story is true, Kavanaugh was a very incompetent teenage rapist!  His simply being a teenage frat-boy drunk wouldn't have been much of a scandal if he hadn't denied it before Congress.  Even his tendency to lose his cool under pressure wouldn't have necessarily disqualified him.  All of that put together didn't make him look worse than the Dems made themselves look with their foaming anti-Trump, anti-Kavanaugh hysteria. 

Why did they let themselves go like that?  Was it just because they really believed that Kavanaugh would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?  Not even the furthest-right of Trump supporters actually thought there was a chance of that, whatever hopes and dreams they may have cherished.  I have to wonder what the Dems were really afraid of.  Am I just being Anarchist-Paranoid in thinking that the Dems have been planning a big gun-control push, and knew that a non-leftist SCOTUS would never support it?

Or could it be that the Dems have begun to realize that the old definitions of Right and Left have come unglued, that the media don't have the power they think they have, and the American electorate is much less predictable than the analysts and experts thought?     

     

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

More Thoughts on 9/11


Perhaps it's because I'm fighting off a nasty cold and a toothache at the same time, or perhaps it's because two of my kittens just died of scorpion-stings, or perhaps  it's because I'm tired to death of hearing CNN/MSNBC railing constantly about Trump -- I swear, if those pundits stepped in dog-sh!t they'd claim that Trump put it there -- but I am royally PO'ed about the leftists' current wail over the Fed-govt. cutting all aid to the UNWRA -- and then closing down the last PLO "embassy" in Washington.  Today, of all days!  Tell me why, as we're officially mourning the deaths of nearly 3000 innocent people killed by Muslin/Arab/Palestinian thugs, we should pity-pity those same global thugs and give them millions of our tax-dollars to keep on waging war with us!  Frankly, I think that cutting off the money to our enemies is the smartest thing that Trump has ever done.  Let the jolly jihadists go whining for money to their rich buddies in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey for their pay-offs every time they kill an American, or an Israeli, or any other non-Muslim in the world.

Having studied these thugs for awhile now, I have lost all sympathy with them.  If I had a choice as to how to spend our tax-dollars, I'd send a few million rounds of ammunition to Israel in gratitude for the valuable service that country is doing for the rest of the world. 

It's becoming increasingly obvious that World War Three will be fought not between the US and Russia, or the US and China, or any combination of the three;  it will be fought between the Jihadists and the rest of the world  -- and anyone who reduces the numbers of the Jihadists is a friend to all of us. 

And all those leftist idiots telling us that concern with the Jihadist threat is "racism" have their heads so far up their @sses that they're coming around for the second time.

First, let it be understood that "Arab" is not a race – no matter what clever propagandists may tell you.  Along with the usual Semitic/Mediterranen types, there are also tribes of Arabs who have creamy-pale skins, red or blond hair, and blue or green or hazel eyes.  There are also tribes of Arabs who are distinctly Black.

"Arab" is not a religion, either.  There are (or were until recently) Christian Arabs in Lebanon, Pagan Arabs in the Kurd provinces, And even Jewish Arabs near what used to be Babylon. 

"Arab" is not even a language, or language family.  Folk in the middle-east speak more than Arabic;  there's Urdu and Pashti, for example, not to mention the north African languages.

What "Arab" really means is a particular culture.  This culture spreads throughout the middle-east, westward across north Africa, and eastward as far as Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Though it shares various features with its neighboring societies, it's readily recognizable and distinct from them. 

Chief among its distinct characteristics are its constant attitude of self-righteous victimhood, its eager religious fanaticism, its related disbelief in objective reality, and its particularly vicious sexism.  Most scholars blame these on Islam, but in fact they existed long before Islam was invented;  the culture shaped the religion more than the religion shaped the culture.  Note particularly how cultural icons like veiling women's heads, female circumcision, and execution of women for mere suspicion of "adultery", are not commanded anywhere in the Koran. 

So where did this peculiar cultural pattern come from? 

The answer stretches back over 4000 years, which explains the common assumption that Arabs have "always been like this".  It goes back before the beginnings of literacy itself, which is why the evidence has been dug up by the archeologists more than historians.  The earliest writings, though, include accounts of earlier myths -- which contain tantalizing hints of an earlier culture which was far different.

What we have managed to learn in the last century is that the first civilizations were matriarchal.  Before about 4000 years ago, humans didn't realize that it was sex that caused pregnancy;  people thought that women made babies by themselves, by magic.  Therefore, the only bloodline was the mother's;  all inheritance of property or rank went through the mother's line.  From a "great mother" ancestor of a tribe, to a divine Great Mother of all humanity, to a Great Mother Goddess of all life were easy steps.  Artistic images of Great Mother Goddesses have been found all the way from Britain to Mongolia, Scandinavia to Africa, dating as far back as 25,000 years. 

Between 4000 and 5000 years ago, it changed.  Humans learned, most likely from observing domesticated animals, that sex is necessary for breeding – therefore, males had a share in the next generation too.    

How people reacted to this knowledge varied widely.  Some cultures moved smoothly toward ambiarchy, steadily giving men – and male gods – more social standing.  Others insisted on turning their societies upside down, elevating males above females and reversing the previous moralities;  where the matriarchies had been largely peaceful, increasing their wealth and influence with trade, the new patriarchies became fiercely warlike and imperialistic.  Over the course of nearly 2000 years, the warlike patriarchies conquered their neighbors and enforced their New World Order on most of Europe, Asia and north Africa.  The history of this conquest was brilliantly revealed and detailed in Merlin Stone's classic book, "When God Was A Woman".

Until about 30 years ago, archeologists assumed that the cultures which chose warlike patriarchy all came from the Aryan tribes along the northern tier of Europe and Asia;  Dr. Marja Gambata even traced the pernicious attitude to the Kurgan culture of eastern Russia.  Further diggings since then, however – including the famous Grave of the Amazon Queen found in western Mongolia – show that this wasn't the case.  The northern Aryan cultures were ambiarchal down into historical times.  The warlike patriarchies which swept down into Greece, Crete and Mycenae were "northern" only in relation to the Mediterranean, having come the long way around the Black Sea.  The warlike Aryans who swept into India around 1700 BCE were likewise "northern" only in relationship to India.  The Hyksos who conquered Egypt came primarily from the east.

It turns out that the real epicenter of warlike patriarchy was a place called Eridu, just east of the juncture of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in present-day Iran.  However subsequent capitals of empires shifted, the center of the warlike patriarchal culture was in the heart of the middle-east.  There it has remained to this day.

This explains much about Arab culture ever since.  First gods dethroned goddesses, then eliminated them altogether – culminating in the institution of a single all-ruling god who demanded his worshipers conquer/convert the world for him.  Women were progressively stripped of all social rights, ending as chattels – even regarded as soulless animals, who could be slaughtered at will.  War was valued higher than trade, to the point were trade came to be regarded as only a subtle form of warfare.  The need to justify the almost-frantic sexism in the face of facts led to the assumption that the laws of nature are not fixed – the foundation of science – but only the whim of the ruling god, who can change his mind if bribed with enough prayer, piety, and human sacrifices.  Likewise, when the world, and the facts, refuses to go one's way for all one's piety, it must be somebody else's fault – and thus the sense of outraged victimhood, which in turn justifies any action against that perceived somebody else.  Historically, all these elements where already present in Arab culture long before Mohammed was born;  the religion he invented only gave them all a unifying excuse.

For the sake of world peace, we must totally eradicate Arab culture itself.  If that means eradicating every last Jihadist in the world, then let's rev up the factories and start turning out the ammunition.  The bums deserve it.

--Leslie <;)))><