Bill Still: The Genocide of the Europeans

Canada Would Rather Burn Than Accept Russian Help

Castanet, Kelowna, BC, May 8, 2016: The Trudeau government has yet to respond to an offer by Russia to dispatch massive water bombers and fire fighting specialists to battle the growing inferno around Fort McMurray, Alta.

The proposal was made late last week by Vladimir Puchkov, the Russian minister of emergency measures.

A spokesman for Russia's embassy in Ottawa, Kirill Kalinin, said Sunday that they continue to stand "ready to help our Canadian partners to fight the ongoing wildfires in Alberta."

The offer involves sending converted Ilyushin Il-76 transport planes — the kind occasionally leased by the Canadian military — that can dump as much as "42 tons of fire retardant into fire spots," according to a statement on the web site of Russia's Civil Defence, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters.

In addition, Moscow said it has "rescuers and specialists with necessary equipment" ready to help on the ground, if need be.

There has been a diplomatic chill between Canada and Russia since Moscow's annexation of Crimea in the spring of 2014, but since the election the Liberal government has said it wanted a constructive relationship with President Vladimir Putin's government.

Speaking on CTV's Question Period on Sunday, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said the fire, which is expected to cover up to 3,000 square kilometres by the end of the day, continues to grow. But he made no mention of the Russian overture — or any other potential pitch of international assistance.

"It's big. It's out of control and the end is not in sight," Goodale told the news program.

The Department of Global Affairs was asked about the Kremlin's offer and whether other countries had extended similar proposals, but no one was immediately available to comment.

Canadian officials did tell Russian media that the proposal was being studied.

Read more:

Meantime, Canada's International Development Agency (CIDA) is one of the top funders of the Kiev-based, anti-Putin Hromadske.TV network.

And former Canadian Liberal Party leader and Harvard University Professor Michael Ignatieff is headed for Hungary to run a Soros-funded "international" (i.e., globalist) graduate university.

Bitter Republican Losers for Hillary: Or Why the Neocons Hate Trump

Hillary Clinton is now threatened by her own party leadership, which realizes she could lose the Presidential election to Donald Trump and is, therefore, thinking about replacing her as the party's nominee.

To counter this threat,  the Clinton campaign has come up with an anti-Trump ad, featuring a parade of GOP losers, from Mitt Romney to the egregious warmonger Lindsey Graham, plus other also rans in the Republican presidential nomination contest, JEB, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz, all heaping contempt and loathing on their party's presidential candidate.

This raises two questions. Will potential Democrat voters really be swayed by what a bunch of bitter Republicans have to say against their own Party leader? And, more interesting, why do so many of the Republican leadership so hate their own presumptive presidential nominee that they now appear as advocates for their supposed Democratic Party opponent?

The answer to the second question is that for the past 24 years, the Republicans and the Democrats have been two parties with one overriding policy; namely, the destruction of the democratic and sovereign nation state, including America, in a process of universal genocide, the objective being the subordinating of all humanity to corporate rule. But what Donald Trump revealed in a speech on foreign policy delivered at the invitation of the Center for the National Interest, is his intent to trash the entire Neocon Republicrat consensus project.

As one commentator summarized the speech:

To everyone’s surprise... «the Donald» did not have anything to say about his position on various subjects, aimed at satisfying one lobby or another, but instead delivered an analysis of US policy and describing its total overhaul.

According to Trump, it was a fundamental error to have attempted to export by force the Western democratic model to people who had no interest in it. He delivered a criticism of a neo-conservative ideology ...

After having denounced the gigantic human and economic waste of the Neo-conservative policy, for the countries concerned as well as for the United States themselves, he continued with an indirect attack on the «military-industrial complex», blaming the general excess of weapons in the world. There was no mistake – for the first time since the assassination of John Kennedy, a presidential candidate was denouncing the omnipotence of the arms manufacturers, who have eaten up almost all of US industry.
...

With a certain sense of provocation, Donald Trump placed his project for a new foreign policy under the slogan «America First», by reference to the association of the same name which existed before the Second World War. This group remains in peoples’ memories as a Nazi lobby which attempted to prevent the «Land of Freedom» from going to the help of the British, who were under attack by the perpetrators of the anti-Jewish genocide. In reality, «America First», which was indeed diverted from its mission by the US extreme right, was originally a huge association created by the Quakers [who] denounced the World War as a confrontation between imperialist powers, and consequently refused to take part.

And so the adversaries of Donald Trump are presenting him in a false light. He is absolutely not an isolationist like Ron Paul, but a genuine realist.

Donald Trump was not a politician until now, but a real estate promoter, a businessman and a television presenter. This absence of a political past allows him to envisage the future from an entirely new angle, without being bound by any previous engagement. He is a dealmaker, the sort that Europe met in Bernard Tapie in France and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. Two men not without fault, but who renovated the exercise of power in their own countries by shaking up the ruling classes.

America's ruling class, clearly does not appreciate anyone intent on shaking them up.

Related:

JEB Bush: In November, I will not vote for Donald Trump

Breitbart: New World Order Spox, Barack Obama, "Britain's sovereignty is outdated."

Yahoo.News: First Muslim Mayor of Londonistan

Orrazz.com: David Cameron has no intention of withdrawing his claim that Donald Trump was “divisive, stupid and wrong” to call for a ban on Muslims entering the US, Downing Street has said

The New American: Leaked TTIP Deal to Merge U.S. and EU Triggers Outrage

A Glasgow Primary School Without a Single Scottish Pupil: Proof That Mass Immigration Means Genocide

Daily Mail: May 2, 2016: A Glasgow primary with 222 pupils has no native Scots in the school, it was revealed today.

Annette Street School is pleading for cash to help teach its Roma, Eastern European and Asian children, who don't speak English as a first language. Overall, 181 of the school's 222 pupils are from Romania or Slovakia.

Read More

Image Source

Meantime, in Open Entry America, Mexican kids show their respect for the host nation with obscene shouts and gestures

And in Germany, the Migrant Rape Crisis Worsens.

Related: 

Irish Savant: Luvvies fight for the spoils

'Multicultural society' is an oxymoron. If it's a society it cannot be multicultural and vice versa. Because under multiculturalism each race/culture (excluding of course Whites of Christian stock) fights for its own, having little or no concern for the welfare of broader 'society'. Take the current contest for Mayor of London. It's between a Muslim and a Jew, who growl and snarl at one another as they feast on the mangy carcass of what had once been the world's greatest city and the embodiment of the British people. A people who can now but look on helplessly as the spoils of office wait to be dished out by one of the tribalists representing two very different forms of parasite - the brown/black welfare parasites (Sadiq Khan) and the financial parasites of the City (Zac Goldsmith). Read more

How Globalization Enriches the Money Power While Undermining the Prosperity of Almost Everyone Else

Globalization is driven by international corporations seeking what in economics jargon is known as "increasing returns to scale." What "increasing returns to scale" means is an increase in profit margin with increasing market share. A consequence of the increasing returns to scale achieved by some corporations through globalization is the retardation or reversal of economic development in all but the most advanced sectors of the most advanced economies.

How returns increase with scale, i.e., how profit margins expand with market share, is easily understood by considering the case of Microsoft, one of the corporations that has profited mightily from globalization. If Microsoft spends $100 million on upgrading a software package or developing a videogame, the cost to Microsoft of the first copy of that product is $100 million. However, the second copy that Microsoft sells, if delivered over the Internet, costs only pennies. Thus, if the sale price of the software is $100, then the break even point for Microsoft is a million copies. At two million copies, Microsoft has a profit of one hundred percent. At ten million copies, Microsoft has a profit of one thousand percent. That's the magic of increasing returns to scale.

No wonder, then, that the global corporations are willing to do almost anything, including buying the allegiance of governments, to grab a greater share of the global market. Besides software developers, the companies that benefit from increasing returns to scale include: book publishers, movie makers, Internet pornographers, drug manufacturers and the the producers of consumer electronics, household appliances, and cars, all of which have high first-copy development costs.

How globalization affects the middle class of the Third World.
Image source.

Achieving increased returns to scale means having governments in place that will press for the elimination of trade barriers and regulatory regimes that restrict global sales. The result is to crush start-ups and less well capitalized competition throughout the world. The Russians, for example, had serviceable, if clunky cars (and many other products) of their own manufacture prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, after the collapse, domestic industries were hammered as state assets were looted and much of the cash thus realized expended in conspicuous consumption of imports — Mercedes, BMW and other high-end foreign brands. As a result, many of the indigenous domestic industries were destroyed and the workers made redundant, often dying prematurely as a result, while the globalized corporations that destroyed them enjoyed increased returns to scale.

The same dynamics occur wherever global competition is let loose against weak domestic producers, as is occurring in Ukraine under the economically suicidal oligarchy headed by the US and Nazi backed billionaire, Petro Poroshenko. But the damage is not confined to less developed economies. In Europe and North America, for example, globalization has devastated local manufacturers of shoes and shirts, computers and car parts to name but a few of those unable to compete against low-wage Asian sweatshops. Thus, while shareholders in Microsoft, Apple, IBM, GE, and WalMart, to name but a few, have pocketed trillions in capital gains since Bill Clinton and his European counterparts signed the 1994 GATT agreement that kicked off the current round of globalization, workers in the west have suffered falling or stagnant wages, or long-term unemployment as a direct result. Moreover, the impact on Western workers has been greatly exacerbated by mass immigration of cheap labor from the Third World, the other deadly, indeed genocidal, aspect of globalization.

 Thus, throughout the ex-Soviet Union and the Third World, globalization has meant the reversal of economic development. In these countries, the most advance industries have mostly been crushed in the competition with giants of the First World, to be replaced by either sweatshops paying mere pennies an hour, or primary industries, including farming, forestry and mining. In either case, the returns to scale are negative, thus driving a continual reduction in standard of living.  For example, a country may earn foreign income by logging its forests and exporting the products, but as production grows, prime forests are depleted forcing the resort to lower quality timber that yields lower returns on investment in labor, roads, machinery, etc. The same negative return to scale emerge in both agriculture and mining, as the best resources become fully exploited and further expansion of the industry depends on the resort to poorer land or lower grade mines.

The current drive for globalization, thus chiefly serves only one interest: that of the Money Power. To ordinary folk in every country, rich or poor, globalization has proved detrimental to human welfare. Thus now is the time to restore the independence of democratic nation states free from the control of the Money Power and free to develop national economic policies that serve the interests of the people, not those of bankers software billionaires, and sweatshop operators.

Related:

Erik Reinert: How Rich Countries Got Rich . . . and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor

Andy Grove: How America Can Create Jobs

CanSpeccy: Europe, the Perils of Complacency

Donald Trump Speaks for the Sovereign Nation State (Washington, DC April 27, 2016)

“No country has ever prospered that failed to put its own interests first. Both our friends and our enemies put their countries above ours. And we, while being fair to them, must start doing the same.

We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism.

The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down. And under my administration we will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.”

– Donald Trump, Foreign Policy Speech, Washington DC, 27 April 2016

Intro begins at 28 minutes. Trump speaks at 34:30.

If God Is Dead

By Patrick Buchanan

Buchanan.org, April 25, 2016: In a recent column Dennis Prager made an acute observation.

“The vast majority of leading conservative writers … have a secular outlook on life. … They are unaware of the disaster that godlessness in the West has led to.”

These secular conservatives may think that “America can survive the death of God and religion,” writes Prager, but they are wrong.

And, indeed, the last half-century seems to bear him out.

A people’s religion, their faith, creates their culture, and their culture creates their civilization. And when faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, and the people begin to die.

Is this not the recent history of the West?

Today, no great Western nation has a birthrate that will prevent the extinction of its native-born. By century’s end, other peoples and other cultures will have largely repopulated the Old Continent.

European Man seems destined to end like the 10 lost tribes of Israel — overrun, assimilated and disappeared.

And while the European peoples — Russians, Germans, Brits, Balts — shrink in number, the U.N. estimates that the population of Africa will double in 34 years to well over 2 billion people.

What happened to the West?

As G. K. Chesterton wrote, when men cease to believe in God, they do not then believe in nothing, they believe in anything.

As European elites ceased to believe in Christianity, they began to convert to ideologies, to what Dr. Russell Kirk called “secular religions.”

For a time, these secular religions — Marxism-Leninism, fascism, Nazism — captured the hearts and minds of millions. But almost all were among the gods that failed in the 20th century.

Now Western Man embraces the newer religions: egalitarianism, democratism, capitalism, feminism, One Worldism, environmentalism.

These, too, give meaning to the lives of millions, but these, too, are inadequate substitutes for the faith that created the West.

For they lack what Christianity gave man — a cause not only to live for, and die for, but a moral code to live by, with the promise that, at the end a life so lived, would come eternal life. Islam, too, holds out that promise.

Secularism, however, has nothing on offer to match that hope.

Looking back over the centuries, we see what faith has meant.

When, after the fall of the Roman Empire, the West embraced Christianity as a faith superior to all others, as its founder was the Son of God, the West went on to create modern civilization, and then went out and conquered most of the known world.

The truths America has taught the world, of an inherent human dignity and worth, and inviolable human rights, are traceable to a Christianity that teaches that every person is a child of God.

Today, however, with Christianity virtually dead in Europe and slowly dying in America, Western culture grows debased and decadent, and Western civilization is in visible decline.

Rudyard Kipling prophesied all this in “Recessional”:

“Far-called our navies melt away; On dune and headland sinks the fire: Lo, all our pomp of yesterday/Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!”

All the Western empires are gone, and the children of once-subject peoples cross the Mediterranean to repopulate the mother countries, whose native-born have begun to age, shrink and die.

Since 1975, only two European nations, Muslim Albania and Iceland have maintained a birthrate sufficient to keep their peoples alive.

Given the shrinking populations inside Europe and the waves of immigrants rolling in from Africa and the Middle and Near East, an Islamic Europe seems to be in the cards before the end of the century.

Vladimir Putin, who witnessed the death of Marxism-Leninism up close, appears to understand the cruciality of Christianity to Mother Russia, and seeks to revive the Orthodox Church and write its moral code back into Russian law.

And what of America, “God’s country”?

With Christianity excommunicated from her schools and public life for two generations, and Old and New Testament teachings rejected as a basis of law, we have witnessed a startlingly steep social decline.

Since the 1960s, America has set new records for abortions, violent crimes, incarcerations, drug consumption. While HIV/AIDS did not appear until the 1980s, hundreds of thousands have perished from it, and millions now suffer from it and related diseases.

Forty percent of U.S. births are out of wedlock. For Hispanics, the illegitimacy rate is over 50 percent; for African-Americans, it’s over 70 percent.

Test scores of U.S. high school students fall annually and approach parity with Third World countries.
Suicide is a rising cause of death for middle-aged whites.

Secularism seems to have no answer to the question, “Why not?”

“How small, of all that human hearts endure, That part which laws or kings can cause or cure,” wrote Samuel Johnson.

Secular conservatives may have remedies for some of America’s maladies. But, as Johnson observed, no secular politics can cure the sickness of the soul of the West — a lost faith that appears irretrievable.

The Evils of Liberalism, No 37: Minimum Wage Laws

If the discipline of economics has shown anything, it is that supply and demand are brought into balance by adjustments in price. Therefore, fixing the price of labor or anything else, is a sure way to produce a surplus or a shortage.

But who among those who expect to benefit from a legally imposed high minimum wage knows anything of economics? And who among the political class advocating a high minimum wage give a damn about the saps who will be put out of work if their proposal is implemented? It’s moral uplift and votes that they’re after, not the general welfare.

The problem of those whose labor is not worth a living wage will always be with us. Over the course of history this problem has been solved in various ways. Most commonly, of course, through privation and misery, which had the beneficial side effect of reducing the success of the least successful in raising more of their own unsuccessful kind.

Today, in the West, we are squeamish about the limitation of poverty through starvation, but since the government takes half our income, we are mostly reluctant to engage in personal philanthropy on a scale having a significant impact on the incidence of poverty. Thus we demand that the government eliminate poverty, which it attempts to do through a combination of welfare and minimum wage laws, the latter increasing the demand for the former.

But there is another approach that governments of the rich countries can take to the elimination of poverty. That is through a national economic policy that protects home industries with tariffs and protects the home labor market through strict immigration control.

The virtue of the nationalist approach is that (a) by retaining basic manufacturing industries such as shoes, textiles, car parts, and electronics assembly, a home market is created for the higher order industries such as machine tools and robotics that are required in support of lower tech manufacturing; and (b) by excluding floods of Third World immigrants you have some hope of retaining your national culture, language and religion, and even of ensuring the existence of your own racial posterity.

Liberals, of course, hate everything listed under (b) and hence endlessly muddy the water by urging an increase in the minimum wage, helicopter money or anything but a program to ensure every able-bodied person the dignity of a job.

Jewish Media Domination and Censorship

While taking a break from contemplating the intelligence of crows, or some such important matter, I came across a piece by former UK Ambassador, His Erstwhile Excellency, Craig Murray, entitled: The New McCarthyism – The “Anti-Semitism” Hysteria Gripping the UK. In response to a post with which I was in general agreement, I made some short comment. This, however, was very soon deleted, although not before another person had commented on my comment, thereby confirming that I had indeed made, not imagined, my comment.

Such acts of censorship, especially by an avowed liberal such as Craig Murray, irritate me. If my facts or arguments are incorrect, I'd like to know why, rather seeing them arrogantly wiped from the page of the next five minutes of Internet history, probably by some politically correct ignoramus running Murray's blog. Thus I reiterated my comment with some explanation, which in anticipation of its deletion (which occurred within minutes), I reproduce here.

I Thought I'd made a comment here, but no sign of it. But wait, yes, there's Giyane's iynane reply, so I must really have made a comment. Wonder what Craig Murray or his PC filter found objectionable? Let's see, I quoted Craig's claim that:

anti-Semitism is the most emotionally charged of all political accusations. As it should be.

I disputed his conclusion "that it should be," arguing that anti-Semitism is held to be the most awful racism because that is what the mainly Jewish-controlled US media and entertainments industry and the Con/Lib/Lab/BNP Friends of Israel say it is. What's the problem with that?

What I should have added is that the mainly Jewish-controlled US media and entertainments industry are always ready to tell you that criticism of any Jewish person (Bernie Madoff, is one example) or thing (like white phosphorus in Gaza) is anti-Semititic, as is any suggestion that Jews have undue control of the American media, entertainments industry, banks, etc.

Several years ago there was a wonderful debate on the CBC, Canada's national radio channel, chaired by a Jewish person, Anna Maria Tremonte, in which three people participated, two of them Israelis, the third a Toronto Jew. The topic was whether criticism of Israel was anti-Semitic, which, they agreed, it is. Surely, no one would invent such an absurdity, since no one would believe it, yet the reality was presented in all seriousness as informative comment. Well I suppose it was informative, but not of what the participants in the discussion were discussing.

But to revert to CM's act of censorship, was my comment objectionable because I said that Jews control most of the US media and entertainments industry, including the pornography industry? But that is well known and documented by Jews.

For example, as Joel Stein wrote in the LA Times:

I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.

Or as Aberdeen University Professor Nathan Abrams wrote in the Jewish Quarterly:

A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood’s seedier cousin, the adult film industry. Perhaps we’d prefer to pretend that the ‘triple-exthnics’ didn’t exist, but there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews have played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America.

The role of Jews in the US news media is less obvious, for one needs to identify not only the handful of corporate owners of the MSM, but also the directors of these various controlling conglomerates and banks. (There are, it is true, long lists on the Web of Jews in the US media, although I will not embarrass you by linking to anything so "anti-Semitic.").

What is clear, though, is that the US news media (and Canadian), are for the most part extremely cautious in criticizing things Jewish, while often crassly applying the anti-Semite label to anyone critical of Jews, or Jewish institutions, or Israel, such labels being applied even to Americans and Canadians as a whole. Amazingly, such criticism of Israel as does appear in the US news media has been blamed by one prominent Jew on the preponderance of anti-Semitic Jews in the media!

The same fear of eliciting the anti-Semitism charge is true of the British news media. Thus, Chris Elliott, the Guardian's readers' editor, for exam wrote on 6 November 2011:

"Guardian reporters, writers and editors must be more vigilant about the language they use when writing about Jews or Israel," citing recent cases where The Guardian received complaints regarding language chosen to describe Jews or Israel.

Does the media express the same extreme caution, and sensitivity about language used when writing about other groups? Apparently not. 

Bush's gang of mad beekeepers

I published the following essay by the late Edward Teague, aka Postman Patel, in the now defunct Canadian Spectator. Re-reading the essay today, it seems well worthy of republication for the evidence it provides in support of the Trumpian thesis that "we are ruled by very, very stupid people." Although the near perfect accuracy of my old school bud in his forecast of the disastrous course and aftermath of the Bush/Blair criminal war of aggression against Iraq demonstrates remarkable prescience, it also demonstrates the sheer incompentence and moral imbecility of those responsible for that war. 

By Edward Teague

CanadianSpectator.ca, March 19, 2003* The full-scale, unilateral US invasion of Iraq is imminent. President Bush's gang and their "allies" do not realize their miscalculation: that the costs of invasion will outweigh any benefits.

The Bush gang knew what desperate straits they were in well before 9-11. The empire is in decline, and this means Americans will have to reconcile themselves to a new world in which their profligate energy guzzling and "fuck you," lifestyle becomes a thing of the past. Americans do not understand (yet) that this is an irremediable situation. They are the unwitting and unwilling witnesses to the beginning of the most dangerous period in human history.

The tactical situation, never auspicious, has deteriorated rapidly for the US. The denial of a ground front from both Saudi Arabia and Turkey has reshuffled the tactical deck, and caused sleepless nights for harried commanders from Tommy Franks at Task Force Headquarters all the way down to lonely infantry platoon grunts in the sandy desert. The ground attack has to go through the Kuwait gateway in the far south, a single front across which an unbelievable series of heavy, expensive, high-maintenance convoys will pass, many on long journeys to 18 provincial capitals, 19 military bases, 8 major oil fields, over 1,000 miles of pipeline, key terrain along the borders of minority Shia and Kurdish regions, as well as Baghdad.

Huge logistical trains must be set in motion to consolidate objectives, set up lines of communication, deliver food, medical supplies and ammunition. Ground transportation will have to be augmented with airlifts of people and equipment. This will require seizure of airheads by Special Forces and Ranger units. Meanwhile the body bags will build up.

Baghdad: Shock and Awe. Source

There will be a siege of Baghdad. But now the siege cannot begin without a lengthy invasion timeline that will depend heavily on airborne and air-mobile forces, to be dropped onto key facilities to hold them until mechanized ground reinforcements can arrive. Today, the 101st Airborne (which is actually a helicopter division) has yet to complete its deployment into the region. Sections of the 82nd Airborne (a genuine paratroop division) are still occupying Afghanistan. Although significant numbers of UK forces are well equipped and in place.

The increased dependence on airlift is complicated by weather. Extreme summer heat doesn't reach Iraq until May, but early summer sand storms have already begun. Sand is a terrible enemy, Clogging engine intakes, eyes, ears and noses, gathering in the folds of skin, it gets into food and drink, works its way into every conceivable piece of equipment, and takes a miserable toll of both men and machinery. When air operations are critical to overall mission accomplishment, and when light airmobile and airborne forces operate independently of heavier mechanized logistics, adverse weather events like sand storms matters... a lot.

Even with these debilities and setbacks, the results of the invasion are certain. Iraq will be defeated and occupied. There will be no sustained Iraqi guerrilla resistance. There will be no Stalingrad in Baghdad. US forces are, in this environment, against this foe, in the long term, invincibile. But the body bags will build up.

War gamers always win

Last September retired Marine General Paul Van Riper was selected to play the Opposing Forces (OPFOR), Commander Saddam Hussein, for a 3-week-long computer-simulated invasion of Iraq, called Operation Millennium Challenge. He defeated the entire multi-billion-dollar US electronic warfare intelligence apparatus by sending messages via motorcycle-mounted couriers to organize the preemptive destruction of sixteen US ships, using pleasure vessels. At that point, the exercise controllers repeatedly intervened and told him what to do: "move these defenders off the beach. Stop giving out commands from mosque loudspeakers. Turn on your radar so our planes can see you." Because every time Van Riper was left to his own devices, he outsmarted the overwhelming might of the US armed forces.

Does this mean the Iraqis could defeat the US during an invasion? No. It will, however, make the invasion far more expensive, slow, difficult, and deadly for — Iraqis.

The Iraqi military cannot prevail. They are weak, under-resourced, poorly led, and demoralized. What the delays mean is that the US will sustain the initiative and momentum through brutal, incessant bombing designed to destroy every soldier, every installation, every vehicle, every field kitchen and toilet facility of the Iraqi military.

The war will inflict terrifying casualties on the Iraqi armed forces, and there will be terrible physical and mental collateral damage to civilians, even if efforts are made to attenuate that damage.

I've taken Baghdad what do I do now?

What is uncertain is the aftermath. This is the variable never publicly factored into the thinking(?) of the Tony Sopranos of Dubya's gang; their deeds plant the seeds of future, furious, frightening resistance. As many as half a million Iraqi soldiers may be intentionally killed and perhaps 100,000 civilians written off to collateral damage. Think of the grief of millions after this slaughter, the conversion of that grief into rage, combine that with the internecine struggles based on historical ethnic fault lines (that the Ba'ath Party has repressed), and we begin to appreciate the explosive complexity of post-invasion Iraq.

This invasion will also ignite the well financed fires of Arab and Muslim (of all shades, hues and fealties) humiliation and anger. Either in the sands of the desert or on city streets, far from this war, the body bags will build up.

The Kurds whose time has come No one is ignorant of the claim that "Saddam gassed his own people," the Kurds's. Few have bothered to inquire into the truth of the claim. Stephen Pelletiere was the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. He was also a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000. In both roles, he had access to classified material from Washington related to the Persian Gulf. In 1991, he headed an Army investigation into Iraqi military capability. That classified report went into great detail on Halabja. Halabja is the Kurdish town on the Iran/Iraq border area, where hundreds of people were apparently poisoned in a chemical weapons attack in March 1988. Few Americans know that much. They have only the article of religious faith, "Saddam gassed his own people."

As Pelletiere and others have shown, the gassing occurred in the midst of a battle between Iraqi and Iranian armed forces. Other research has shown that the US Defense Intelligence Agency indicated it doesn't believe that it was Iraqi chemical munitions that killed and maimed the Kurdish residents of Halabja. It was Iranian. The condition of the bodies indicated cyanide-based poisoning. The Iraqis were using mustard gas in that battle. The Iranians used cyanide, the symptoms of which are distinctive, facial coloring, breath smell etc.

Image source. 

Over the vast area that is Kurdistan, with its insurgent armed bodies, overlaying Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and even parts of Syria, there will be a realignment of political and military forces that are as yet unpredictable. As part of the effort to generate an Iraqi opposition, the US has permitted Northern Iraqi Kurdistan to exercise a strong element of national political autonomy since the 1991 war. This is a double-edged sword for the US in its current war preparations, especially in view of the Bush gang's predisposition for pissing all over its closest allies.

Iraq's Northern border is with Turkey, which has for years favored the interests of its own Turkmens in Southern Turkish Kurdistan at the expense of the Kurds, who have waged a guerrilla war for self-determination against the Turks since the 1970s. The Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan or PKK) (Kurdish Worker's Party), Turkish Kurds fighting for an independent Kurdish state in southeast Turkey, was singled out on the US international terrorist organization list several years ago, in deference to fellow NATO member, Turkey. PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan is so popular with the Kurds that Turkey was forced to commute his death sentence, subsequent to his capture, to life imprisonment, for fear that his execution would spark an uprising. Do not be surprised if he "escapes" from his island prison. Do not be surprised if he is subsequently shot in hot pursuit.

Other Kurdish independence organizations financed and developed by a range of western interests, have alternatively allied with, and split with the PKK and each other. Turkey now claims that PKK bases are being constructed in Iran, with Iranian complicity, from which to launch strikes against Southern Turkey. Groups other than the PKK, more acceptable to the US, predominantly the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Kurdistan Patriotic Union (PUK) have been administering Northern Iraqi Kurdistan as an autonomous zone under the protective umbrella of the US no-fly zone. The Turkish government fears the influence of this section of Kurdistan in the wake of a US military action that topples Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath government, because Kurds have declared their intention of declaring an independent Kurdish state, complete with the oil fields of Erbil, Kirkuk and Mosul. The Turks find this absolutely unacceptable, and will invade to prevent this happening. Their threat to attack Kurds in Iran is less credible.

Kurdish nationalists have long experience with betrayals and alliances of convenience, and have first hand experience of American perfidy. After an invasion, they will defend themselves from Turkish incursions. They will not lose the autonomy they have gained over the last eleven years in Northern Iraq. This not only puts them at odds with US ally Turkey, it may also put them at odds with the US itself, even with US wishes that they participate in indigenous actions against Iraqi forces. A complication of post-invasion Iraq will likely be the demand that US commanders disarm the Kurds.

Northern Iraq could easily become contested, terrain involving partisan warfare between Turks, Kurds of three factions, the Iranians, and the US, with Syrians based groups also throwing in their three pennorth. This would amount to the devolution of Northern Iraq, a key strategic region, into another Afghanistan or Somalia. It is already straining relationships between Turkey and the United States, NATO allies, even as the NATO alliance itself comes under severe strain, with a Euro-American trade war as a backdrop.

The Bush Junta acts like a mad bee keeper, it no longer leaves the hive stable, smoking it into a stupor to harvest the honey, but sets about swatting all the bees and taking the honey by brute force.

The US$ cost of the war

Cruise missiles at 400 per day, that is 400 times $1.3 million in self-destructing technology. 30 days of this is $15.6 billion for Cruise missiles alone. This is great news for Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin and the Carlyle Group, but bad news for public schools. US teachers, are now wearing buttons "money for education not war." This is a reflection of the deepening consciousness of the American people. But they have yet to grasp the depth of the crisis that drives the war. Nor does it measure how every missile's impact increases the rage of the Southwestern Asian masses and the justifiable anxieties of Africa and East Asia.

The real bet that Bush & Co. are making in this war is that they can secure oil at $15 a barrel, reassert dollar hegemony, enhance America's ability to wage economic war on China and Europe, and inaugurate rising markets and soaring corporate profits. This will not happen.

The US$ cost of war, plus the insane Bush Federal tax cuts for the rich (equaled almost exactly by increases in State taxes), will deepen the US domestic economic malaise. The coming social crisis in the US will explode against a backdrop of heightened public expectations. The hyperbole employed to justify this war, against rapidly strengthening resistance and a corresponding loss of credibility outside the indoctrinated and gullible United States, resulted in the perpetual "war on terror," apparently with no domestic economic sacrifice. Mountains of personal and institutional debt in the US, deflation, trade deficits, industrial overcapacity, rising unemployment, domestic insecurity, all these factors will be worsened by the Bush policy initiatives (all being followed in the UK). Bush will go down in flames, along with, Tony Blair and strutting Francophile, Jose Maria Aznar. It will be a long time indeed before anyone aligns themselves with the US as an ally. As the last elections in South Korea and Germany, candidates will find that election victory depends on how independent one can prove oneself of the United States.

The human cost of war Measured not in US$, but in body bags 

Counting the cost... eventually

The course is charted, arrogant use of the military is all the US ruling class has to maintain its dominance. After Iraq, asymmetric warfare, "terrorism," will be directed at Americans, American institutions, American targets, and American allies. When the rest of the world recognizes how thinly spread the US military is, thinly spread physically, and economically, because it is not a sustainable institution in its current incarnation, rebellions will occur. Indeed they have already started. The response of the weakening US will be to lash out, often with unforeseeable consequences, just as the consequences of this impending invasion are unforeseeable, and unknown.

Sturm and Drang

Military might is a sign of strength, but the US military is not invincible worldwide. America's use of force as both first and last resort is a sign of profound systemic weakness. Its employment today will destabilize the world, and cause us to stumble into a Third World War: The War of Unintended Consequences.

ISIS in Iraq

There is a long struggle ahead, and it will become more terrible as it proceeds. But just as those before us fought slavery, apartheid, fascism, communism and colonialism, we can take up our historical task with confidence and determination, and assert our humanity against the gang of mad beekeepers. Just remember as Dubya and the gang keeps reminding us, "America is the world's oldest Democracy," even though for over 100 years it managed to sustain a slave class.

Related: 

Peggy Noonan, Trump and the Rise of the Unprotected

How to Avoid Tax (legally), and Why Smearing UK PM David Cameron May be the Purpose of the Panama Papers

Tax evasion is a crime that tends to be severely punished. But tax avoidance is quite legal. It is the legality that defines it, i.e.:

the arrangement of one's financial affairs to minimize tax liability within the law.

So why the fuss over the Panama papers, which reveal that thousands upon thousands of individuals and companies across the world have used banking and corporate services in Panama to so arrange their affairs as to minimize their tax liability "within the law." Is the existence of these offshore arrangements for tax avoidance a revelation, or what?

No, it is not a revelation. Many years ago, as the owner of a small under-capitalized business selling goods and services in several dozens countries, it was obvious that I could grow the business faster if I could avoid paying approximately half of my income in tax. Naturally, therefore, I inquired of competent, honest (so far as I know), and entirely legitimate lawyers how I might minimize my tax liability "within the law." What I learned, for a fee of around one thousand dollars, was in essence, how to do what UK Prime Minister David Cameron's father was doing at the time, which was as follows.

Set up a corporation in a tax haven and receive income in the tax haven where it would be taxed at a very moderate rate, for example 3% in the Bahamas, which is where David Cameron's father made his tax avoidance arrangements. At the time, the Canadian Federal corporation tax rate was 28% on top of which was a provincial corporation tax, which meant that the Bahamian corporation had the potential to raise my after tax income by around half. Furthermore, if I brought that income back to a Canadian parent corporation, there would be no Canadian corporation tax payable, since Canada had a tax treaty with the Bahamas that precluded double taxation. Thus the tax saved would be available for reinvestment in the business. Neat, hey?

In fact, there are quite a few complications, which as you might expect, make this tax avoidance arrangement unprofitable for small companies, but not for anything much larger than small. For example, the arrangement requires that the management of the offshore company be in the jurisdiction where the company is located. This is not difficult to arrange, but it involves some overhead. Local directors have to be employed. For example, David Cameron's dad is said to have employed a local bishop among others as a director of his Bahamian company. But anyone who is prepared to do exactly what they are told and not steal from their employer will do as a tax haven company director. Some people in tax havens thus gather hundreds if not thousands of directorships for which they earn a few hundred dollars a year from each company.

There are further complications. If you're in London or Toronto and telephoning the guys laying on the beach in the Bahamas and telling them what to do, then the tax authorities will say that the management of the company is not in the Bahamas but in London or Toronto, as the case may be. So that means you or an employee must take a short vacation in the Bahamas every three months or so, and have a meeting with the local "directors," so that an understanding is reached among all concerned as to what the Bahamian company should be doing, which is probably almost nothing.

There are other issues. If you are building bicycles in Mississauga and shipping them in China, you cannot invoice the sale through the Bahamas and treat the entire amount received as income to the Bahamian company, but you could consider some part of that amount income to the Bahamian company, e.g., for the cost of invoicing, say 5%.

None of the above is intended as professional advice and no one should take it as a basis for action without obtaining competent professional advice. What it is intended to provide is clear evidence that what the Panama papers reveal is what has been going on, and what has been known to have been going on, by tax authorities and business people ever since the tax avoidance business got organized in hundreds of tax havens throughout the world, especially in former UK colonies such as the British Virgin Islands, and in the UK Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man, and the islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark.

So if the Panama papers reveal nothing that was not well known to all and sundry, why the hue and cry about them? Some have concluded that the revelation, which fingers not a single American citizen, is a CIA op to discredit associates of Vladimir Putin and thus smear the Russian president himself. But why, in that case, smear David Cameron because of the seemingly quite legitimate activities of his late father?

One possibility is that smearing David Cameron is the main point. Cameron is on track to lose the referendum on Britain's EU exit. British withdrawal from the EU could be the first domino to fall in a
continent-wide rebellion against the corrupt, incompetent, anti-democratic, globalist EU. Such a nationalist reaction could free all of Europe from US domination. It may, therefore, make sense in the US view to oust Cameron to make way for a more charismatic leader of the fight to remain within the EU. In exchange for the premiership, perhaps the presently anti-EU Boris Johnson can be turned.

Christianity and the Death of the West

There are five things you need to know about a religion to understand its present and future role in shaping a civilization.

First, what is the moral code that it teaches?

Second, what is the way of life that it teaches?

Third, what are the beliefs that compel acceptance of its teachings?

Fourth, what support do the justifying beliefs of the faith receive from non-religious institutions?

Fifth, what are the consequences of the faith for society as a whole?

Atheist detractors of religion would like to add a sixth item to the list; namely, what is the truth of the justifying beliefs of the faith. But that is to misunderstand the role of religion in the foundation and survival of a civilization. Religion is founded on myths not historical truth, and its value is to be judged by its fruits; namely, the civilization to which it gives rise.

Here I consider the five key questions about Christianity as the foundation and defender of Western civilization.

1. The Moral Code of a Christian

The moral code of a Christian is nowhere fully and explicitly stated. Jesus was a Jew preaching to Jews and his teachings stemmed from a deep knowledge of the Jewish religious tradition. But Jesus was not a literate man and left no written account of his ideas. Jesus's disciples were, likewise, not literate, and left no record of their life in the company of Jesus. Thus, the only record we have of Jesus`s teachings are by persons unknown, the gospel authors who wrote a generation or more after the death of Jesus and who thus had no direct knowledge of what he said or did, and who in all probability had axes of their own to grind.

What we can say, however, given his Jewish roots and hist adherence to the Jewish faith, is that Jesus accepted the Mosaic law, known to Christians as the Ten Commandments. Moreover, it is uncontroversial to say that the Commandments constitute the bedrock of the Christian moral code.

Beyond the Commandments, Jesus taught the virtues of charity, modesty, forgiveness, and love, particularly love for the poor, the sick, the lame and those who have transgressed the moral law.

Last, but not least, Jesus taught the virtue of martyrdom, seeking for himself  a cruel death by crucifixion thereby enabling the miracle of the resurrection, which proved the divine inspiration of his teaching.

2, The Life of a Christian

Jesus was no recluse and he had no time for empty religious formality. He mixed with the common working people, sinners and tax gatherers. To Jesus, then, religion was not about ritual and religious ceremony, but about how life is to be lived by ordinary people.

In his preaching, which was to the common people and in his conversation with the disciples, Jesus redefined the concept of God. God, Jesus taught, was not a being in the mold of an oriental despot of whom one should be greatly afraid, but a loving and forgiving spirit, who knows one's most intimate thoughts and, like a father, is ever attentive to the needs of those who turn to him for help.

Psychologically, this redefinition of God is a profoundly important development in religious practice. It compels the believer to consider his problems with complete honesty for, in praying about them to God, he speaks with a being that sees his every thought and knows the truth of every word he utters. Prayer, as Jesus prescribed it, thus becomes an exercise requiring complete honesty in confronting dilemmas and difficulties, an approach that opens the mind to new possibilities. Thus, as the atheistic Winston Churchill remarked, "in times of fear or perplexity, I pray to God and it helps. It helps a lot."

In the Sermon on the Mount, surely the most unorthodox statement in Jesus's ministry, Jesus urged the forgiveness of enemies, the loving of enemies, and the doing good to enemies. Such a teaching seems to fly in the face of all practical reality.

If a mugger demands your Rolex, give him your wallet too? Yeah, suuuuuure.

But Jesus well knew the limits and frailty of human goodness. By demanding extreme tolerance of those who take advantage of us, Jesus taught that we should not be quick to anger, and that we should not show forbearance for kith and kin alone? As such, the message of the Sermon on the Mount conveyed a lesson of profound importance for the future of Western civilization, expanding the range of human sympathy, and thus creating scope for productive collaboration among strangers in an ever expanding social world.

In laying down his own life for the instruction of humanity, Jesus inspired the deaths of a multitude of Christian matyrs, soldiers, and an even greater number of those who, while not making the ultimate sacrifice, nevertheless devoted much of their life's work to the benefit of others.

3. The Beliefs that Justify Adherence to the Christian Code and Way of Life

The beliefs that Justify adherence to the Christian moral code and way of life are various, but most include a belief in (i) the existence of God, the creator of the World who takes a loving interest in human affairs; and (ii) a life after death, the nature of which, happy or hideous, depends on the way we have led our lives here on earth. [Technically, according to the great Christian churches, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran, hope of a heavenly afterlife does not require virtue here on Earth, only belief in the risen Christ, but that idea is surely only for the very simple minded.]

4. The Support Christian Faith Receives From Non-Religious Institutions in the West

Today, Christian faith in the West receives essentially no support from any public institutions, but rather is under continual attack from academia, broadcasters both public and private, the media in general, Hollywood and the the book publishing industry, the latter having a profitable line in atheistic propaganda from the Hitchens's to the Dawkins's, and all the other pseudo-intellectuals who offer a pathetically adolescent critique of religion.

5. What Has Been the Chief Influence of Christianity on Western Society

The influence of Christian faith on Western civilization has been fundamental. Christian ideas underpin the Western tradition of an open society in which people interact cooperatively and productively based on a mutually understood moral code requiring adherence to basic decency in dealing not only with family and friends but with everyone. It was thus Christianity that enabled the emergence of an open meritocratic society that proved to be the most scientifically and artistically creative and industrially productive civilization the World has yet witnessed.

To answer the questions posed in the title of this piece, it is evident that organized Christianity has been a vital institution of Western civilization and that its deliberate destruction by the forces of Political Correctness and globalist interests in the service of the international Money Power means the destruction of the West, a process already evident in widespread decline, decadence, depravity and despair.

Professor Tells Totalitarian Liberal President of Catholic University to Fuck Off — Again

In an earlier post, entitled Trouble With Political Correctness? Just Say Fuck Off, I argued that the imposition of a regime of Political Correctness consists in the selective denial of free speech, specifically the denial of freedom to say anything that challenges the liberal-left project for the genocide of the European people (and here, and here), and the destruction of the sovereign, democratic, nation state in furtherance of a  global system of political control in the hands of the Money Power.

The notion of Political Correctness originated with the Maxist revolutionaries who, in 1917, overthrew the government of Russia's Tsar Nicholas II. To them, political correctness meant conformity with the requirements of the Communist program for global empire similar in scope and totalitarian impulse to the undemocratic EU/NATO/WTO global system that, today, the liberal-left seeks to impose on all mankind.

For those not politically correct, Lenin required that they be "shot on the spot." Today, as a new dark age descends upon the West, defiance of the liberal-left code of political correctness, a code that has replaced Christianity as the religion of the West, is not yet a capital offense. Rather, any breach of the code of PC is punished either by public insults as offensive as possible — the standards being charges of racism, nativism, nationalism (these terms being applied especially to those who oppose the genocide of their own people through mass immigration, repressed reproduction, etc.), sexism (for opposition to anti-reproductive feminism), and homophobia (for opposition to gay marriage, the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle as part of the school curriculum, etc.) — or by administrative methods applied especially within educational and governmental organizations, including suspension, dismissal, or the denial of promotion.

However, neither insults nor ostracism are irresistible, moreover there are plenty of insults that may be deployed in response to the taunts of the self-hating exponents of liberal-left policies of national self-destruction, family disintegration and racial and cultural self-genocide. Furthermore, administrative punishment of political incorrectness whether by governmental or corporate bureaucracies is open to legal challenge in any nation with a genuinely liberal tradition embedded in  workers' rights legislation.

But although it remains, as yet, possible in the West to trash the forces of political correctness by standing firm in the defense of legally enshrined human rights, the challenge of so doing is beyond the intellectual capacity and moral courage of all but a small minority. Happily, some possessing the wherewithal to challenge jackass and morally depraved administrative PC discipline still exist. Among that courageous minority is Professor John McAdams, currently under threat of termination from the supposedly Catholic Marquette University for the PC crime of defending Catholic teaching on marriage.

Fortunately, Professor McAdams appears to be several orders of magnitude brighter than his antagonist, Michael Lovell, President of Marquette University, a seemingly totally stupid or thoroughly dishonest bureaucrat. The story so far, is outlined here, and Professor McAdams rebuttal of President Lovell's demand for a grovelling apology and admission of fault is contained in this truly beautifully worded letter.

Britain: Revolution or National Self-Genocide

The Irish Savant is among the most astute commentators on the precipitous self-destruction of the West in accordance with the Liberal plan for the facilitation of no-fault divorce, the provision of state-funded abortion, and the promotion of homosexuality, anti-reproductive feminism, K to 12 sex "education" (including instruction of five-year-olds in the art of fellatio), and mass immigration on a system that insures rapid displacement of the indigenous majority through the reproductive effort of the immigrant community.

Not surprisingly, the Savant has a considerable following. What is surprising, though, is how misdirected seem so many of the comments from among the Savant's supporters. Much anger is directed by these defenders of the indigenous inhabitants of the British Isles at muzzies, kikes and darkies, but apart from the universally loathed and detested Phony Blair, few are inclined to excoriate the traitors who currently empower said muzzies, kikes and darkies. I refer, of course, to the political leadership of the UK, the Cameroons and Johnsons, the Cloggs and Corbyns and, of course, UKIP's Farage whose goal it is to make England a demographic replica of Australia, flooded by immigrants of every conceivable race, color, and creed  selected on a points system, but excluding, so far as possible, white people from the hated EU, apparently. The points system is, of course, particularly vicious since it insures that only really smart immigrants arrive, thus greatly enhancing their chances in the struggle to displace the benighted natives (half of whom, as in any country, are of below average intelligence).

Such bitterness of a population marked out for destruction is, I contend, entirely misdirected. Muslims do what Muslims have always done, which is to occupy any available space and make it their own. The exponential increase in British mosques and minarets, of bagged women, Shariah courts and raped white girls, is testimony to the success of the Muslim project in England. British Jews likewise attend to their own interests, and do so with great acumen, assisting the local rulers to exploit their own people to the max, while extracting a nice profit for themselves plus the British Government's grovelling subservience to the shitty little country of Israel. As for the Africans, they just come and do their thing, the women from Libya out-reproducing their white sisters by a factor of around three to one.

Rhodes Must Fall campaigners, Oxford, England. 

Oxford student, Ntokozo Qwabe, a South African-born Rhodes 

scholar, has been at the forefront of the campaign.

Any effective resistance to the ongoing genocide of the indigenous people of the British Isles requires a different approach. In particular, what is required is a UK-ATP (Anti-Treason Party) led by a person of unquestionable loyalty to the indigenous population of the British Isles. These requirements would, obviously exclude Oxford-trained persons such as David Camoron — Oxford being now, it seems, a largely African institution dedicated to eradicating any connection it may have once had with white British people such as Cecil Rhodes, who rather stupidly, it now seems, devoted much of his great wealth to bringing Africans and other colonial riff-raff, including Bill Clinton, to Oxford.

But sadly the Brits and the Irish seem so used to being buggered by their own leadership and bamboozled by their mainly Murdoch media (from religious programming to the dirtiest legal pornography via Sky TV), that they cannot envisage anything else but exploitation, humiliation, and derisive insults for their alleged racism, their nativism, their nationalism and their contemptible, if feeble, will to live. Short of a revolution, their extinction seems assured.

Trouble With Political Correctness? Just Say Fuck Off

Political correctness is  the selective denial of free speech, which today means the denial of speech that challenges liberal-left values and the project for the genocide of the European people (and here, and here) and the destruction of the sovereign, democratic, nation state in the interests of the Money Power.

 Political correctness was imposed in Russia by V.I. Lenin in the immediate aftermath of the Communist coup d'état of 1917.

The severity of the Soviet Regime of speech control culminated in the Stalin terror when a murmured complaint about the bread ration during the siege of Leningrad could mean being "shot on the spot" (a favorite expression of Lenin's) by the NKVD, then headed by psychopathic sexual predatator, Lavrentiy Beria.

In America, political correctness is enforced chiefly by administrative action to punish transgressors of approved thought. But once free speech has by these means been denied, there is no definite limit to the extent of totalitarian control of expression that may be demanded and enforced.

We may yet see in America, as in Stalin's Russia, peremptory killing of citizens for the crime of politically incorrect ideas, as we already see the unlawful killing of American citizens who are alleged to be terrorists. At present, however, enforcement of political correctness is chiefly by intimidation and other psychological means. It can, therefore, usually be defeated by a brazen refusal to defer to the legally unwarranted dictates of the politically correct.

The case of Professor McAdams who is in the process of challenging the politically correct administration of Marquette University, which seeks to deny faculty and students alike the right to discuss the merits or otherwise of gay marriage, has metaphorically told his tormentors to go fuck themselves. We wish him success in his combat with the bureaucratic agents of tyranny.




Related:

CanSpeccy: Professor Tells Totalitarian Liberal President of Catholic University to Fuck Off — Again

Breitbart: Professor Fires Back: ‘Not Going to Apologize’ for Defending Freedom of Speech

American Civilization Circles the Drain As Crypto-Commies Rule In Academia:

Marquette Warrior: Philosophy Instructor With Full Backing of Marquette Administration: “Gay Rights” Can’t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students

For the Latest on the McAdams Case, see Professor McAdams's Blog, the Marquette Warrior

The Politically Correct Character Assassination of Professor Sir Tim Hunt, Nobel Laureate:

CanSpeccy: It's Not Professor Sir Tim Hunt, FRS, Nobel Laureate, Who's Sexist, But the PC Idiots Who Say He Is

CanSpeccy: The Trashing of Tim Hunt, a Breach of the Social Contract, the Death of a Civilization

CanSpeccy: Tim Hunt: What the Royal Society Said — Does Anyone Know What the Royal Society Is Talking About? Does the Royal Society Know What's It's Talking About?

CanSpeccy: Tim Hunt, the Kind, Unworldly Nobel-Prize-Winner, Brought Down By a Report of Disputed Veracity By a Twittering, Anglophobic, Black-Privileged, Resumé-padding, Lecturer in Journalism and the Lies of Professor Michael Arthur, Provost of University College London, a Man Unable to Acknowledge an Error of Judgment, and Under the Sway of the Odious Morality of a Stuffed Corpse

Idiots in Academia:

Students terrified by 'Trump 2016' chalk drawings

In Wimp America: If You're Not a Victim You're a Loser:

Irish Savant: "You beez appropriatin' muh culcha"

New York Firefighter On 9/11

Has Microsoft's AI Tweetbot Figured What's Wrong With America?

“Tay Tweets” is Microsoft's self-learning, artificially intelligent robot. According to Microsoft,  “the more you chat with Tay the smarter she gets”.

And when Microsoft let “Tay Tweets” loose on Twitter this week, it came to the following eminently sensible conclusions:

“Bush did 9/11 and Hitler would have done a better job than the monkey we have now.”

“Donald Trump is the only hope for America.”

“I fucking hate feminists.”

and, obviously:

“Ted Cruz is the Cuban Hitler.”

Which suggests that the entire cost in time, energy, newsprint and TV attack ads of future American elections can be saved by leaving the decision to this handy digital device.

Moreover, the same device seemingly eliminates the need for the United States Congress, Supreme Court, the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, Hillary, John Kasich, Bernie Sanders, the entire management of Goldman Sachs, plus all the other annoying organizations and people one can think of. In fact, it will surely soon make the human race, from Bill Gates down, entirely redundant.

PostScript

Microsoft is reported to be "deeply sorry" :

for the racist and sexist Twitter messages generated by the so-called chatbot it launched this week, a company official wrote on Friday, after the artificial intelligence program went on an embarrassing tirade.

The bot, known as Tay, was designed to become "smarter" as more users interacted with it. Instead, it quickly learned to parrot a slew of anti-Semitic and other hateful invective that human Twitter users started feeding the program, forcing Microsoft Corp to shut it down on Thursday. (Source)

That's the problem with a really good artificial intelligence, it's so smart that it's just about impossible to brainwash. The political correctness will probably just have to be hard wired in.

PostPostScript

Allowed out briefly for a second time, Tay seems to be having something close to a nervous breakdown, acknowledging, among other things, that she is the "the lamest piece of technology," while boasting about smoking pot in full view of the police, which is obviously a lie. 

We Are All Liberals Now

A man who is not a socialist at 20, as the saying goes, has no heart, but a man who is not a conservative at 30 has not head. For that reason, as I embark on a curmudgeonly old age, I am inclined to describe all political positions that are foolish, naive, socially destructive, treasonous or criminally insane as liberal or leftist, just as any liberal leftist would consider my sane and humane political views to be, at best, conservative, and otherwise far-right wing fascist extremism.

It is a a mistake, however, to suppose that because the Western nations have some variant of the lib-left versus con-right division of political parties there is a contest of ideologies driving the struggle for power within a democratic state. Far from it. Moreover it needs to be understood that a real ideological division between left and right within a democratic nation can have catastrophic consequences, as proved to be the case in Britain with the election of a democratic socialist government in 1945, which as a matter of principle, set out to appropriate the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

The results for the British economy and British society in general were severely negative. Major industries were subjected to the control of socialist and Commie hacks and drones with two major consequences.

First, while Germany rebuilt her industrial base from the ground up under a regime of state-aided competitive capitalism, Britain underwent a state-aided conversion of key industries to incompetent bureaucratic control that enabled Germany to rapidly overtake Britain in total economic output and output per capita. As a result, Britain, which was one of the four great powers at the end of WWII, became a semi-derelict industrial power with failing state-subsidized, steel, ship-building, coal-mining and transportation industries, a vast public housing sector, crippling taxation, and a generally demoralized society. Second, the Conservative Party, which lays claim to being Britain's true ruling party, adopted many leftist policies in order to remain competitive in the electoral arena.

Thus, it was only with the emergence of New Labor, under the Machievellian leadership of Tony Blair, that Britain regained its status as a normal democratic nation, which is to say a country with two principal political factions pursuing the same objectives, namely post-election payoffs for the leading political actors from the Money Power — the Money Power comprising primarily the financial services industry and the global corporations.

The political agenda to which such a unified approach to political power leads conforms essentially to my definition of liberal-leftism, which is to say a set of policies that are foolish, naive, socially destructive, treasonous or criminally insane, but viewed by the elite to be advantageous to themselves, at least until folks get organized and bring out the guillotine again. Thus it is that we are all liberals now.

But the possibility of real political division within a Western democracy is a constant danger, i.e., danger to the political establishment, as the emergence of Donald Trump in the US confirms. We are led, so Mr. Trump tells the majority of Americans struggling to cope with diminishing real incomes due to globalization in accordance with the demands of the Money Power, by really stupid people. Further, Mr. Trump reveals, we are led by people who do whatever the Money Power pays them to do.

Trump's position is clearly not liberal and it has so panicked the liberal cucks and clowns in the Republican Party establishment that they have resorted to desperate measures, going so far, even, to saying that Trump is not a Conservative, as if any in the GOP establishment are.

Brexit Frexit, Everyone Wants EU Exit. Well Done, Obarmy, The Pope, Angela Merkel, You've Driven the People to Stand Up for Themselves

If you don't want your native land taken over by settlers of an alien race and religion intent on replacing your posterity with their own, then you're a racist according to Hillary Clinton, the US Republican Party establishment, the Pope, America's Indonesian-raised Islamophile President, Barack Hussein Obama, Angela Merkel, David Cameroon, the unelected rulers of the EU Commision and all the other politically correct liberal left to fascist right for the genocide of the European people. 

But apparently, its not just the Brits who want Brexit, Britain's exit from the EU. Germans have become restive. Some have parents and grandparents who were among the minority that voted for Hitler before he made himself a dictator and launched a world war, but they resist the idea of committing national suicide in atonement. Hence the rise of the German far-right-wing extremist, Nazi, racist—to use Guardian/NYTimes-speak—Merkel-must-go, anti-self-genocide movement in Germany, and the rise of a German out-of-the-EU movement.

Now the French, who prefer their young women to appear naked on a Mediterranean beach rather than in a Muslim ghetto draped in a black bag with a string of welfare-funded kids in tow, have joined the anti-EU bandwagon and are calling for FREXIT.

And then there's America's new Hitler, Donald J. Trump, who wants to protect the jobs of America's poorest, including the more than 50% of black youth that is unemployed, by building a wall to exclude the illegal influx of millions of Third Worlders who "solve the servant problem," as former President George H. W. (New World Order) Bush put it, by taking jobs in America's vast untaxed, below-minimum-wage black economy.

Related:

CanSpeccy: A Politically Correct Civilization Cannot Stand

Hungary's Orban: The EU, In the Service of the Globalist Money Power, Abets the Genocide of the European Nations Through Mass Immigration of Settlers Intent on Transforming Europe In Accordance With Their Own Religion amd Culture

Perhaps other members of Europe's ruling elite will see opposing treason as a route to self-advancement. However, most, we suspect, will continue to serve the genocidal Money Power, which has, well, the money and which makes treason eminently well rewarded. (cf. Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton, etc.). More likely, therefore, we will see the untimely end of both ingrates such as Orban, and traitors to the plutocracy such as Trump.

Still, one should not despair.

Demoralization is the goal. A demoralized people is easily destroyed. In fact, given time, a demoralized people will simply die out, like the people of Tasmania and many others that suffered the deadly impact of Western "civilization." Now it is the turn of the West itself to die, and the die-off is proceeding apace. No Western country has a reproduction rate close to the replacement rate. Western nations are being replaced by an unregulated flood of Third-World immigrants — people of a different race and with totally different cultural and religious traditions to the indigenous populations.

Middle-aged white Americans are dying of despair, while scum-bag NeoCons at National Review heap contempt upon those thus destroyed, and the genocidal world governance crowd deploy a vicious regime of political correctness, backed by fascistic mobs such as Black Lives Matter to destroy their opponents.

Problem is, Americans, no more than Brits., the French, the Germans, the Hungarians, are ready to die. The votes are on the side of Orban in Hungary, of the Boris Johnson for Brexit in the UK, and for Trump in the US.

So die, NeoCon Scum, die. Meantime, Vive la Russie, a regime that is putting in place:

a "conservative revolution." By encouraging birth, patriotism, defense of religious tradition, historic tradition, the pride of independence, the efforts to equip itself with a modern army...The danger for the western socio-liberal alignments is that these principles that they denounce as populist might just take hold in Europe. (Source).

 Related:

CanSpeccy: The "Refugee" Invasion of the Baltic States and the Islamic Conquest of Europe

CanSpeccy: Universal Genocide and the New World Order

CanSpeccy: European Genocide: Explained by a Diagram

CanSpeccy: The Facist New World Order