2010-02-04
Indian Rumblings
The last time I nearly got in a fight with a stranger was around 1999 in Berlin when I saw a German thief stealing some stuff and decided to accost him.
Today (2010-02-04) was the first time since then that it happened again.
Learning about conflict at a personal level gives insights into war at a state level, and vice-versa. I have analyzed the situation from both ends trying to get a handle on the problem. 20 years of analysis culminated in message 666, but let's watch it play out.
Situation was this. I was walking to the train station today, like most days. There were two ethnic Indian (or similar) standing about 1 metre apart. I have never spent any time thinking about why people sometimes stand there, but after thinking about it, I realise that that's the pickup point, and they're probably waiting for their husbands etc to pick them up. I knew that was the pickup/dropoff point, but I had never associated that with people standing idly by. Anyway, they were clearly unrelated women by the way they were standing.
Then there was a clearly agitated white guy walking on and off the road, who I needed to get by, without getting into a conflict. I don't want conflict, so I avoid eye contact etc, yet still keeping an eye on the threat.
I was raised in a violent household, met violence everywhere at school, and I know very well that the only human rights you get to enjoy are those that are being enforced by violence.
Anyway, my wary eye watched this guy head to the lift (I was taking the stairs, they're generally quicker), and on his way to the lift he necessarily travelled behind the Indian ladies and he deliberately elbowed one of them.
Time for war.
One thing that really pisses me off about peaceniks is that they generally can't even control their own anger with their next door neighbour, yet they talk about lofty ideals like world peace. Generally speaking, the state actors they complain about tend to act with far more constraint than they do themselves. They should be asking themselves why they don't act more like America - taking criticism on the chin, and only fighting genuine forces of evil rather than a mere personality clash. Be honest about your own violent nature that produces such hostility towards a guy like Bush in the middle of liberation 52 million people from state-slavery. Let's be honest about the ever-present violence, and make sure it is channelled appropriately.
Logically, the technically correct solution to this problem would have been to call the police quietly while pretending to be calling a friend, and then let heavily armed security forces attack in a posse of overwhelming unchallengable force. I could have also checked the car that the woman got into when she disappeared, so that the police could ensure she could be contacted to file a complaint. It simply makes no sense to approach a dangerous situation with an ambiguous balance of power when an overwhelming power is just a phone call away. In the military they talk of securing flanks using natural obstacles or whatever. In this situation, I have the rule of law protecting my flank.
I was wearing headphones and a backpack, but I could clearly see him mouthing "fuck". I suspect he just wanted some attention. Someone to acknowledge his existence. The Indian women were quietly ignoring him, and this was his way of getting some sort of interaction. Regardless, now was not the time for sympathy. Now was the time for war.
Not only had this guy violated someone's human rights - picking on a weak woman instead of someone his own size - when he should have been trying to protect that woman - he had the audacity to think that no-one could stop him. Everyone was too shit-scared of him to act.
Wrong call.
This is something the Chinese dictatorship simply cannot grasp. When you murder children in Tiananmen Square, brazenly, right in front of our face, to someone like me, it shows utter contempt. You think we're too afraid of you to stop you. Or maybe you think we're all racist sociopaths like Foddy who couldn't give a shit about victims of crime, so long as they're not your skin colour or nationality. And the 9/11 hijackers make the same wrong call. You attack a friend of mine and expect to get away with it? Not while I have air to breathe. You add insult to injury when you not only attack my friends, you think I'm too cowardly to stand up for them. Well fuck you. And yes, I'm willing to put my life on the line.
One thing that doesn't even enter your mind in a country like Australia is the thought that a criminal may have a gun and there's a good chance you'll wind up dead. It's very very rare to encounter an armed criminal in this situation. Altercations always come down to a fistfight, not a gunfight. So when the stupid gun-totin yanks with low IQ tell you how without guns in the hands of citizens there will be an absolute killing spree by criminals, hell on earth, it's complete crap. In Australia you're actually in a position to arrest criminals.
Unfortunately I didn't have time to construct an elaborate plan, or think through all these issues. An arsehole just spat in my face, basically. The conversation went like this:
me:"HEY!!!" (that got his attention)
Then I approached him, and took out one of my headphones so that I could actually have a conversation.
me:"What do you think you're doing?"
crim:"Nothing, I was just carrying my coffee"
(he was carrying a coffee in fact)
I had the guy pretty much cornered. If he had made a run for it, I would have tackled him. Oh, wait, the balance of power thing. I am overweight and seriously unfit. However, I appeared to have a height and weight advantage over him regardless. But I did have a backpack on which wouldn't have helped. Anger plays a big role too. He was already angry. I can only speculate why, but my guess is that he has a pretty shitty life in a capitalist society where his skills aren't in any great need. What can I say? Capitalism sucks. It's only virtue is that it sucks less than any other system that's ever been trialled. But I was angry too, and he could presumably see in my face that I was prepared to go all the way. Any wrong move on his part and the violence would commence. You can never tell in these dicey situations, but I would have expected to win. It is in my basic nature to snuff out the enemy, literally, and some fights at school ended when people prevented me from strangling someone to death, in the process of responding to their attack.
As an aside, I do not believe this white guy was attacking the Indian woman due to racial motives. I speculate that it was his probably shitty life that did it, and that he would be more than happy to be best friends with an ethnic Indian, let's say as a partner in crime of some sort, or a fishing buddy or whatever. It will almost always come down to whether someone is willing to accept him as he is and be nice to him. Very unlikely that he would reject friendship with someone out-of-hand due to his skin colour. I've met maybe 1 person in my life who may have done that.
Back to the conversation.
me: "You deliberately hit that woman"
Can't remember what his response was, if anything.
me: "Have you got a problem?"
crim: "No, no. I don't have a problem".
(I'm not really great at smalltalk, and I was running out of ideas)
me: "Shall I call the police?"
crim: "No, no need for that".
I had literally run out of ideas at this point. Without the guy making some sort of move, I didn't know what to do. He was pretty much backed into the fence and hoping for a way out.
He had called the lift and the lift arrived, and he got in. My intention was to get into the lift with him and see how things went from there. What I really wanted was a cop or someone to suddenly appear to take charge of the situation to decide what the appropriate thing to do was.
However, he guessed correctly that staying in the lift could be dangerous for him, and immediately got out.
Basically he had taken the necessary action to defuse the situation and escape his predicament.
The female victim had since walked away. The first thing that came to my mind is that she didn't want to be involved in a petty spat between two apparently violent thugs. In hindsight, it is more likely that her ride had simply arrived. If she had been there to give advice, and say she wanted to press charges, no problem, I'd now have the blessings of the appropriate authorities to do whatever they wanted to resolve the situation to their satisfaction.
The other Indian woman was still there, but she wouldn't have known what the situation was.
So with the crim pacified, the victim gone off in what I thought was a huff about violent men (I actually never even looked at her at all from the moment I saw that guy's elbow - I was totally focussed on the enemy and the expected battle), I was at a loss of what to do. So I just paused for a few seconds and left to catch my train. No idea what happened after that.
Later on I regretted not taking the opportunity to ask him why he would attack a woman, and try to change that anger into something positive - like anger against criminals. However, even later on that that, I can expect that I would have met with the same success in trying to turn state-rape-supporters like Foddy into anti-state-rape campaigners. Human dogma is impenetrable, and there is a 99.99% chance that this is a guy who runs on dogma, like 99.99% of the planet, not logic.
I haven't bothered to read the comments in my previous blog, because I can already predict the "oh look Paul, you're showing your anti-Indian racism" from anti-white racists like the author of the original article. And I probably won't bother reading the comments to this one either, as scum like Foddy try to spin this as yet another example of alleged anti-Indian racism, and that maybe I would have called the police had it been a white victim, or some other such lies that the left-wing live on. I honestly have better things to do with my life than listen to the same racist dogma again and again and again. One of those things was to e.g. go to work instead of being a dork with no plan on what to do with this cornered crim, who'll probably be robbing my house next week anyway.
Interestingly, the German crim was equally as cunning. When I confronted him (after he was gracious enough to speak English to me in his own country), he said that he had paid for the goods and that I should go and ask the shopkeeper. Actually when I went to the shopkeeper and said "do you speak English?" they initially said no. And despite having seen him steal this stuff I still said "I think that guy just stole some of your property". Turns out that one of them did speak English after all, and said thanks, but nothing they could do about it since the goods were outside the shop on display.
Oh well, maybe I wouldn't make a very good cop. And I can see interpersonal disputes going horribly wrong if I was a soldier too. Let me stick with what I am good at - completely and utterly decimating the pathetic arguments that the left-wing scum puts up to oppose good cops like America taking down criminals like Saddam. Even if I'm not a very good implementor personally, I at least can easily identify right from wrong when Saddam is raping women and chopping the tongues out of men. Maybe Foddy will learn that skill one day too. I mean, the only thing standing in the way of him learning that currently is the 99.999999% of his brain that is pure dogma.
|
Today (2010-02-04) was the first time since then that it happened again.
Learning about conflict at a personal level gives insights into war at a state level, and vice-versa. I have analyzed the situation from both ends trying to get a handle on the problem. 20 years of analysis culminated in message 666, but let's watch it play out.
Situation was this. I was walking to the train station today, like most days. There were two ethnic Indian (or similar) standing about 1 metre apart. I have never spent any time thinking about why people sometimes stand there, but after thinking about it, I realise that that's the pickup point, and they're probably waiting for their husbands etc to pick them up. I knew that was the pickup/dropoff point, but I had never associated that with people standing idly by. Anyway, they were clearly unrelated women by the way they were standing.
Then there was a clearly agitated white guy walking on and off the road, who I needed to get by, without getting into a conflict. I don't want conflict, so I avoid eye contact etc, yet still keeping an eye on the threat.
I was raised in a violent household, met violence everywhere at school, and I know very well that the only human rights you get to enjoy are those that are being enforced by violence.
Anyway, my wary eye watched this guy head to the lift (I was taking the stairs, they're generally quicker), and on his way to the lift he necessarily travelled behind the Indian ladies and he deliberately elbowed one of them.
Time for war.
One thing that really pisses me off about peaceniks is that they generally can't even control their own anger with their next door neighbour, yet they talk about lofty ideals like world peace. Generally speaking, the state actors they complain about tend to act with far more constraint than they do themselves. They should be asking themselves why they don't act more like America - taking criticism on the chin, and only fighting genuine forces of evil rather than a mere personality clash. Be honest about your own violent nature that produces such hostility towards a guy like Bush in the middle of liberation 52 million people from state-slavery. Let's be honest about the ever-present violence, and make sure it is channelled appropriately.
Logically, the technically correct solution to this problem would have been to call the police quietly while pretending to be calling a friend, and then let heavily armed security forces attack in a posse of overwhelming unchallengable force. I could have also checked the car that the woman got into when she disappeared, so that the police could ensure she could be contacted to file a complaint. It simply makes no sense to approach a dangerous situation with an ambiguous balance of power when an overwhelming power is just a phone call away. In the military they talk of securing flanks using natural obstacles or whatever. In this situation, I have the rule of law protecting my flank.
I was wearing headphones and a backpack, but I could clearly see him mouthing "fuck". I suspect he just wanted some attention. Someone to acknowledge his existence. The Indian women were quietly ignoring him, and this was his way of getting some sort of interaction. Regardless, now was not the time for sympathy. Now was the time for war.
Not only had this guy violated someone's human rights - picking on a weak woman instead of someone his own size - when he should have been trying to protect that woman - he had the audacity to think that no-one could stop him. Everyone was too shit-scared of him to act.
Wrong call.
This is something the Chinese dictatorship simply cannot grasp. When you murder children in Tiananmen Square, brazenly, right in front of our face, to someone like me, it shows utter contempt. You think we're too afraid of you to stop you. Or maybe you think we're all racist sociopaths like Foddy who couldn't give a shit about victims of crime, so long as they're not your skin colour or nationality. And the 9/11 hijackers make the same wrong call. You attack a friend of mine and expect to get away with it? Not while I have air to breathe. You add insult to injury when you not only attack my friends, you think I'm too cowardly to stand up for them. Well fuck you. And yes, I'm willing to put my life on the line.
One thing that doesn't even enter your mind in a country like Australia is the thought that a criminal may have a gun and there's a good chance you'll wind up dead. It's very very rare to encounter an armed criminal in this situation. Altercations always come down to a fistfight, not a gunfight. So when the stupid gun-totin yanks with low IQ tell you how without guns in the hands of citizens there will be an absolute killing spree by criminals, hell on earth, it's complete crap. In Australia you're actually in a position to arrest criminals.
Unfortunately I didn't have time to construct an elaborate plan, or think through all these issues. An arsehole just spat in my face, basically. The conversation went like this:
me:"HEY!!!" (that got his attention)
Then I approached him, and took out one of my headphones so that I could actually have a conversation.
me:"What do you think you're doing?"
crim:"Nothing, I was just carrying my coffee"
(he was carrying a coffee in fact)
I had the guy pretty much cornered. If he had made a run for it, I would have tackled him. Oh, wait, the balance of power thing. I am overweight and seriously unfit. However, I appeared to have a height and weight advantage over him regardless. But I did have a backpack on which wouldn't have helped. Anger plays a big role too. He was already angry. I can only speculate why, but my guess is that he has a pretty shitty life in a capitalist society where his skills aren't in any great need. What can I say? Capitalism sucks. It's only virtue is that it sucks less than any other system that's ever been trialled. But I was angry too, and he could presumably see in my face that I was prepared to go all the way. Any wrong move on his part and the violence would commence. You can never tell in these dicey situations, but I would have expected to win. It is in my basic nature to snuff out the enemy, literally, and some fights at school ended when people prevented me from strangling someone to death, in the process of responding to their attack.
As an aside, I do not believe this white guy was attacking the Indian woman due to racial motives. I speculate that it was his probably shitty life that did it, and that he would be more than happy to be best friends with an ethnic Indian, let's say as a partner in crime of some sort, or a fishing buddy or whatever. It will almost always come down to whether someone is willing to accept him as he is and be nice to him. Very unlikely that he would reject friendship with someone out-of-hand due to his skin colour. I've met maybe 1 person in my life who may have done that.
Back to the conversation.
me: "You deliberately hit that woman"
Can't remember what his response was, if anything.
me: "Have you got a problem?"
crim: "No, no. I don't have a problem".
(I'm not really great at smalltalk, and I was running out of ideas)
me: "Shall I call the police?"
crim: "No, no need for that".
I had literally run out of ideas at this point. Without the guy making some sort of move, I didn't know what to do. He was pretty much backed into the fence and hoping for a way out.
He had called the lift and the lift arrived, and he got in. My intention was to get into the lift with him and see how things went from there. What I really wanted was a cop or someone to suddenly appear to take charge of the situation to decide what the appropriate thing to do was.
However, he guessed correctly that staying in the lift could be dangerous for him, and immediately got out.
Basically he had taken the necessary action to defuse the situation and escape his predicament.
The female victim had since walked away. The first thing that came to my mind is that she didn't want to be involved in a petty spat between two apparently violent thugs. In hindsight, it is more likely that her ride had simply arrived. If she had been there to give advice, and say she wanted to press charges, no problem, I'd now have the blessings of the appropriate authorities to do whatever they wanted to resolve the situation to their satisfaction.
The other Indian woman was still there, but she wouldn't have known what the situation was.
So with the crim pacified, the victim gone off in what I thought was a huff about violent men (I actually never even looked at her at all from the moment I saw that guy's elbow - I was totally focussed on the enemy and the expected battle), I was at a loss of what to do. So I just paused for a few seconds and left to catch my train. No idea what happened after that.
Later on I regretted not taking the opportunity to ask him why he would attack a woman, and try to change that anger into something positive - like anger against criminals. However, even later on that that, I can expect that I would have met with the same success in trying to turn state-rape-supporters like Foddy into anti-state-rape campaigners. Human dogma is impenetrable, and there is a 99.99% chance that this is a guy who runs on dogma, like 99.99% of the planet, not logic.
I haven't bothered to read the comments in my previous blog, because I can already predict the "oh look Paul, you're showing your anti-Indian racism" from anti-white racists like the author of the original article. And I probably won't bother reading the comments to this one either, as scum like Foddy try to spin this as yet another example of alleged anti-Indian racism, and that maybe I would have called the police had it been a white victim, or some other such lies that the left-wing live on. I honestly have better things to do with my life than listen to the same racist dogma again and again and again. One of those things was to e.g. go to work instead of being a dork with no plan on what to do with this cornered crim, who'll probably be robbing my house next week anyway.
Interestingly, the German crim was equally as cunning. When I confronted him (after he was gracious enough to speak English to me in his own country), he said that he had paid for the goods and that I should go and ask the shopkeeper. Actually when I went to the shopkeeper and said "do you speak English?" they initially said no. And despite having seen him steal this stuff I still said "I think that guy just stole some of your property". Turns out that one of them did speak English after all, and said thanks, but nothing they could do about it since the goods were outside the shop on display.
Oh well, maybe I wouldn't make a very good cop. And I can see interpersonal disputes going horribly wrong if I was a soldier too. Let me stick with what I am good at - completely and utterly decimating the pathetic arguments that the left-wing scum puts up to oppose good cops like America taking down criminals like Saddam. Even if I'm not a very good implementor personally, I at least can easily identify right from wrong when Saddam is raping women and chopping the tongues out of men. Maybe Foddy will learn that skill one day too. I mean, the only thing standing in the way of him learning that currently is the 99.999999% of his brain that is pure dogma.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 23:17 
2010-02-03
Racist Indians
I made a mistake of reading one article from a newspaper at my work a couple of days ago. I should have known better than to waste my life, but nevermind, here's the usual fisking you expect when left-wing lies meet cold hard logic:
"Indian students in Melbourne feel afraid on the streets"
Was a survey done to determine that, or did someone just make it up, showing their own racial prejudice?
"Van Thanh Rudd, an anti-racism activist"
Translated - an anti-white racist.
"wearing a Ku Klux Klan outfit"
ie deliberately stirring up hatred of whites. And then we wonder why we get things like 9/11 and the Bali Bombings etc? Good grief.
"dominant culture in Australia'' was racist"
Yeah? I don't remember being surveyed to ascertain what my "culture" was. I'd be curious to see what sort of survey was done there. Was the questionairre about what people's personal opinions were, or what they thought of other Australians?
Or was the whole thing completely made up, no survey done at all?
"no doubt the attacks had been racially motivated"
Really? The Indian nationals who murdered another Indian national were racist, were they? How does he know? Did he actually bother to ask the perpetrators for their motives, or did he just completely make that up, showing his own prejudices?
Either way, I assume we're talking about anti-Indian Indians, similar in vein to the anti-white whites that infest Australia?
And if the anti-Indian Indians are racist, what the fuck does that have to do with Australia? You want us to have tighter immigration controls to weed out anti-Indian Indians?
How do our immigration controls on racist Indians compare to immigration controls in other countries anyway, to suggest that we are negligent in allowing these scum in?
And regardless, if the concern is about racist Indians, why not attack the problem at its source - India, instead of blaming us for letting these (alleged) racists in in the first place?
Personally I think it's unlikely that the Indians who murdered that Indian were anti-Indian racists. But that's just based on my knowledge of what people typically murder for - money etc. If you're going to risk going to jail for life, you want it to be worth it, and taking out one frigging Indian when there's more than 1 billion of them in the world, is a pointless trade-off. Besides which, if these anti-Indian Indians hate Indians so much, why didn't they just carry out their killing in India when they had the chance? There's such a high concentration of Indians there that you can't miss.
"The magazine quotes far-right politicians"
Far-right used to mean things like "gassing Jews", although that was always a complete lie, given that the National SOCIALIST Party (aka NAZI) party was left-wing, but nevermind, let's continue.
"evidence that 'curry-bashing' is becoming a fun game for white Australians"
Evidence in what form? Survey of popular attitudes? Popular as in greater than 50%, or less than 1%?
And what exactly constitutes "curry-bashing"? Gassing Indians or stringing them up? Laughing at them for losing the last cricket match perhaps? You'll probably find that New Zealanders get laughed at just as much. Would "Kiwi-bashing" also be considered racial in nature, or are perhaps both of them nationalist in nature? Also, I dare say that the Kiwis bash Australia even more than Australians can be bothered bashing New Zealanders.
As someone who actually lives here, I can tell you that the hostility that I see from Australians is actually anti-American. And yes, it stinks. Is it racist? I don't think so. Is it petty jealousy? Quite possibly. Is it because these left-wing Australians don't have two brain cells to rub together? You got it! Australia now has a majority of treacherous sociopathic morons. Whoo hoo.
"increasingly difficult to accept the attacks were devoid of any racial motives"
Difficult to accept because it isn't true, or because a whole stack of racist Indians are baying for the blood of any white person?
"no visible progress so far into most of the investigations"
In India, murder investigations are completed quicker than in Australia? Or does he have statistics to show that murder investigations in Australia have a time-to-resolution dependent on the ethnicity of the victim? Did those assumed-in-existence statistics take into account that maybe Indians are working or living in areas that are more difficult to investigate, rather than the police deliberately working slowly?
I assume ethnic Indians don't want the ethnic Indian perpetrators to be rushed to trial and we end up hanging the wrong ethnic Indians?
"Vinod Mehta"
racist extraordinaire?
"defended the coverage"
defending racism?
"denied allegations"
as all good racists do
"We sent two correspondents to Australia and they found that an overwhelming number of these incidents were racial"
Wow, two correspondents found out more about motives for attacks by coming to Australia for a couple of weeks and probably staying at a hotel, than Australians who live here?
Do these "correspondents" have an "S" on their shirt, showing that they are Super-Correspondents?
They presumably came to Australia, busted in to every police station in Australia, grabbed all the Indian files, read through the motives, found all these perpetrators saying "yep, I'm a racist, I attacked him not for cash for a drug fix, but because I just can't stand Indians ever since they won the World Cup x years ago", and found this to be more than 50%. Like whoo hoo man. And that's the only way I can think of that you would have access to better information by physically being here in Australia rather than just ringing up the appropriate authorities from India, or looking up the appropriate website etc.
"they found that Indians in Australia live in fear"
Every single Indian? I presume they didn't poll every single Indian in their 2 week holiday, because my ethnic Indian co-worker certainly wasn't polled. I actually made the effort to ask him why he would answer that, instead of e.g. be scared of dying in a car crash which is far more likely, and it turns out that no-one even bothered to poll him. Maybe he wasn't black enough? If that isn't racial discrimination, what is? Not black enough to be polled? Good grief. At least I know what to buy him at the next Kris Kringle. Some black boot polish so that he gets equal rights to every ethnic Indian who was black enough to get his opinion heard.
So they took a statistically-valid poll in the time they were here? A phone poll? If you know anything about telephones, you'll know that phone inquiries are being outsourced to India in fact.
People being polled in Australia may in fact be being rung up by Indians already - as in Indians from India living in India, not ones that can afford an Australian education! What on earth is the point of coming to Australia to conduct such a poll?
Also, at the same time as ringing up the ethnic Indians to find out what percentage are living in fear, did they also ring up the ethnic Chinese, ethnic whites, to see what their fear level was?
Also, did they measure fear on a yes/no basis or a scale of 1 to 10?
Was it Indians at level 10, and all other races 0, showing a marked difference that only applies to Indians, or is it just a general concern people have when walking out on the streets late at night, and there was a slightly higher (but still statistically valid) sense of trepidation amongst Indians compared to non-Indians?
Did the poll results factor in any extenuating circumstances like whether Indians are equally statistically more likely to be working late at night, when streets are traditionally more dangerous?
"There is tremendous outrage in this country. I don't think the Australians realise that"
Oh yes we do, or at least, the sensible ones do. It is indeed a complete outrage that Indians would be showing their blatant anti-white racism instead of hiding it under the carpet to at least pretend to be a nation of decent people.
"smug and superior attitude of the Australian government for denying there was racism"
Where is the evidence that the government denies racial motives based on a smug feeling of superiority, rather than because they genuinely believe that to be the case based on the fact that they've probably never met anyone who has ever racially attacked an Indian in their entire lives?
Were the politicians actually asked for their opinion and where their attitude stemmed from? Was this part of the Super-Correspondent's 2-week jaunt down-under - surveying all of Australia's politicians? I sure hope they didn't just Make Crap Up? They'd surely lose their "S" symbol if they did that.
"Mr Mehta said he published the story with great regret"
What? Regret that he didn't actually have any evidence to back up his racist anti-white attacks, so that the charges might actually be believed by non-racists with a brain, instead of merely being lapped up by the racist swill that buys his racist publication?
"I like Australia a great deal"
Really? With friends like that, who needs enemies? Hey sunshine, nobody wants to be your friend. We don't like people like you. Just stay where you are and die. We don't like racist scum, we don't want you to like us either, because one day, when the time is ripe, we are going to face you over the barrel of a gun, and if you want to win this race war you started, you'll have to actually pull that trigger faster than us, or else (tragic!), the anti-racists might actually win the war.
"there is a problem, and by denying it you won't get anywhere"
Time to look in the mirror and take your own advice, sunshine.
"right-wing" comment - "a serious threat to white Australians in the job market"
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with either the desire to ensure employment opportunities go to Australian citizens rather than foreign nationals, and regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the strategy being used to obtain that objective, what is right-wing or far-right about suggesting this policy?
No-one is talking about going to India, rounding up some Indians, bringing them back to Australia, and then gassing them, are they? That's the image I get when thinking about the way the term "far right" has been traditionally used to invoke images of Hitler. "far right" (in reality - "far left") is normally talking about violent attacks on groups, not just denying work visas to foreigners!
"right-wing" comment - "should actively encourage bringing in Christians and white people from Zimbabwe and South Africa"
Once again - even if you personally prefer that Australia continue its current policy of giving priority to refugees who are rich enough to pay people smugglers to get them to Australia, and criminally-minded enough to not care that this is breaking Australian law, and couldn't give a rat's arse that they're actually taking someone else's place by doing that - suggesting that generally educated and peaceful white refugees from black persecution in Africa be transported to a majority-white country where they are less likely to be attacked for their skin colour is hardly the equivalent of gassing Jews.
Why shouldn't Australians be able to choose immigrants that are less likely to be racist against whites, given the extremely scary attitude expressed by citizens of, let's say, as an example, INDIA? Does Australia have any friggin sovereign say in the matter, or do our policies now get dictated to by India? Whatever happened to that "Australia does whatever America tells it to do" theory anyway? I guess that died when the treacherous Rudd pulled our troops from Iraq like the snivelling little dipshit weasel that he is, I suppose? Before then I can distinctly remember how we all used to do a Nazi goose-step to whatever was being broadcast from Voice of America. We had a whole industry where Voice of America shortwave broadcasts were converted to MP3 and you could see Australians wandering around listening to their ipods and doing the goose-step. Well, maybe it was more of a shuffle. Or a walk. And I suspect that there were one or two insidious Australians who were sneakily listening to rock music, but let's not go there.
"the magazine does not report that three people charged with the murder of Ranjodh Singh were Indian nationals"
Surprise, surprise. Any time there's an inconvenient fact, just leave it out rather than have your horrible, racist worldview shattered.
"Reports about attacks on Indians have damaged Australia's $15 billion a year international education industry"
They have? Damaged by how much? 1%? 50%? I would have thought that getting those figures would be extremely difficult. Are you sure you aren't just measuring seasonal variation?
And regardless, how do you know that it's the reports about attacks that did that, rather than e.g. that huge elephant - GLOBAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN?
I presume there was a survey of the people who didn't turn up to Australian educational institutes who mostly or unanimously quoted "reports on attacks" as their reason rather than "dead broke thanks to the stupid US Democrat policy on mortgages which the Republicans fought tooth and nail but failed to stop"?
Also, given that most people coming here for an education aren't Indian anyway, are you saying Chinese people are reading about attacks on Indians and thinking that they might be next in line when the anti-Indian Indians branch out to anti-Chinese attacks, so they're staying away too? The same survey was presumably translated into Mandarin, right? Just like the original reports were translated into Mandarin, because we all know that Chinese students spend most of their time reading newspaper articles about attacks on Indians rather than playing World of Warcraft like their less intellectual counterparts in backwaters like Australia, right?
"This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited"
Don't look at me, I'm just passing through.
|
"Indian students in Melbourne feel afraid on the streets"
Was a survey done to determine that, or did someone just make it up, showing their own racial prejudice?
"Van Thanh Rudd, an anti-racism activist"
Translated - an anti-white racist.
"wearing a Ku Klux Klan outfit"
ie deliberately stirring up hatred of whites. And then we wonder why we get things like 9/11 and the Bali Bombings etc? Good grief.
"dominant culture in Australia'' was racist"
Yeah? I don't remember being surveyed to ascertain what my "culture" was. I'd be curious to see what sort of survey was done there. Was the questionairre about what people's personal opinions were, or what they thought of other Australians?
Or was the whole thing completely made up, no survey done at all?
"no doubt the attacks had been racially motivated"
Really? The Indian nationals who murdered another Indian national were racist, were they? How does he know? Did he actually bother to ask the perpetrators for their motives, or did he just completely make that up, showing his own prejudices?
Either way, I assume we're talking about anti-Indian Indians, similar in vein to the anti-white whites that infest Australia?
And if the anti-Indian Indians are racist, what the fuck does that have to do with Australia? You want us to have tighter immigration controls to weed out anti-Indian Indians?
How do our immigration controls on racist Indians compare to immigration controls in other countries anyway, to suggest that we are negligent in allowing these scum in?
And regardless, if the concern is about racist Indians, why not attack the problem at its source - India, instead of blaming us for letting these (alleged) racists in in the first place?
Personally I think it's unlikely that the Indians who murdered that Indian were anti-Indian racists. But that's just based on my knowledge of what people typically murder for - money etc. If you're going to risk going to jail for life, you want it to be worth it, and taking out one frigging Indian when there's more than 1 billion of them in the world, is a pointless trade-off. Besides which, if these anti-Indian Indians hate Indians so much, why didn't they just carry out their killing in India when they had the chance? There's such a high concentration of Indians there that you can't miss.
"The magazine quotes far-right politicians"
Far-right used to mean things like "gassing Jews", although that was always a complete lie, given that the National SOCIALIST Party (aka NAZI) party was left-wing, but nevermind, let's continue.
"evidence that 'curry-bashing' is becoming a fun game for white Australians"
Evidence in what form? Survey of popular attitudes? Popular as in greater than 50%, or less than 1%?
And what exactly constitutes "curry-bashing"? Gassing Indians or stringing them up? Laughing at them for losing the last cricket match perhaps? You'll probably find that New Zealanders get laughed at just as much. Would "Kiwi-bashing" also be considered racial in nature, or are perhaps both of them nationalist in nature? Also, I dare say that the Kiwis bash Australia even more than Australians can be bothered bashing New Zealanders.
As someone who actually lives here, I can tell you that the hostility that I see from Australians is actually anti-American. And yes, it stinks. Is it racist? I don't think so. Is it petty jealousy? Quite possibly. Is it because these left-wing Australians don't have two brain cells to rub together? You got it! Australia now has a majority of treacherous sociopathic morons. Whoo hoo.
"increasingly difficult to accept the attacks were devoid of any racial motives"
Difficult to accept because it isn't true, or because a whole stack of racist Indians are baying for the blood of any white person?
"no visible progress so far into most of the investigations"
In India, murder investigations are completed quicker than in Australia? Or does he have statistics to show that murder investigations in Australia have a time-to-resolution dependent on the ethnicity of the victim? Did those assumed-in-existence statistics take into account that maybe Indians are working or living in areas that are more difficult to investigate, rather than the police deliberately working slowly?
I assume ethnic Indians don't want the ethnic Indian perpetrators to be rushed to trial and we end up hanging the wrong ethnic Indians?
"Vinod Mehta"
racist extraordinaire?
"defended the coverage"
defending racism?
"denied allegations"
as all good racists do
"We sent two correspondents to Australia and they found that an overwhelming number of these incidents were racial"
Wow, two correspondents found out more about motives for attacks by coming to Australia for a couple of weeks and probably staying at a hotel, than Australians who live here?
Do these "correspondents" have an "S" on their shirt, showing that they are Super-Correspondents?
They presumably came to Australia, busted in to every police station in Australia, grabbed all the Indian files, read through the motives, found all these perpetrators saying "yep, I'm a racist, I attacked him not for cash for a drug fix, but because I just can't stand Indians ever since they won the World Cup x years ago", and found this to be more than 50%. Like whoo hoo man. And that's the only way I can think of that you would have access to better information by physically being here in Australia rather than just ringing up the appropriate authorities from India, or looking up the appropriate website etc.
"they found that Indians in Australia live in fear"
Every single Indian? I presume they didn't poll every single Indian in their 2 week holiday, because my ethnic Indian co-worker certainly wasn't polled. I actually made the effort to ask him why he would answer that, instead of e.g. be scared of dying in a car crash which is far more likely, and it turns out that no-one even bothered to poll him. Maybe he wasn't black enough? If that isn't racial discrimination, what is? Not black enough to be polled? Good grief. At least I know what to buy him at the next Kris Kringle. Some black boot polish so that he gets equal rights to every ethnic Indian who was black enough to get his opinion heard.
So they took a statistically-valid poll in the time they were here? A phone poll? If you know anything about telephones, you'll know that phone inquiries are being outsourced to India in fact.
People being polled in Australia may in fact be being rung up by Indians already - as in Indians from India living in India, not ones that can afford an Australian education! What on earth is the point of coming to Australia to conduct such a poll?
Also, at the same time as ringing up the ethnic Indians to find out what percentage are living in fear, did they also ring up the ethnic Chinese, ethnic whites, to see what their fear level was?
Also, did they measure fear on a yes/no basis or a scale of 1 to 10?
Was it Indians at level 10, and all other races 0, showing a marked difference that only applies to Indians, or is it just a general concern people have when walking out on the streets late at night, and there was a slightly higher (but still statistically valid) sense of trepidation amongst Indians compared to non-Indians?
Did the poll results factor in any extenuating circumstances like whether Indians are equally statistically more likely to be working late at night, when streets are traditionally more dangerous?
"There is tremendous outrage in this country. I don't think the Australians realise that"
Oh yes we do, or at least, the sensible ones do. It is indeed a complete outrage that Indians would be showing their blatant anti-white racism instead of hiding it under the carpet to at least pretend to be a nation of decent people.
"smug and superior attitude of the Australian government for denying there was racism"
Where is the evidence that the government denies racial motives based on a smug feeling of superiority, rather than because they genuinely believe that to be the case based on the fact that they've probably never met anyone who has ever racially attacked an Indian in their entire lives?
Were the politicians actually asked for their opinion and where their attitude stemmed from? Was this part of the Super-Correspondent's 2-week jaunt down-under - surveying all of Australia's politicians? I sure hope they didn't just Make Crap Up? They'd surely lose their "S" symbol if they did that.
"Mr Mehta said he published the story with great regret"
What? Regret that he didn't actually have any evidence to back up his racist anti-white attacks, so that the charges might actually be believed by non-racists with a brain, instead of merely being lapped up by the racist swill that buys his racist publication?
"I like Australia a great deal"
Really? With friends like that, who needs enemies? Hey sunshine, nobody wants to be your friend. We don't like people like you. Just stay where you are and die. We don't like racist scum, we don't want you to like us either, because one day, when the time is ripe, we are going to face you over the barrel of a gun, and if you want to win this race war you started, you'll have to actually pull that trigger faster than us, or else (tragic!), the anti-racists might actually win the war.
"there is a problem, and by denying it you won't get anywhere"
Time to look in the mirror and take your own advice, sunshine.
"right-wing" comment - "a serious threat to white Australians in the job market"
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with either the desire to ensure employment opportunities go to Australian citizens rather than foreign nationals, and regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the strategy being used to obtain that objective, what is right-wing or far-right about suggesting this policy?
No-one is talking about going to India, rounding up some Indians, bringing them back to Australia, and then gassing them, are they? That's the image I get when thinking about the way the term "far right" has been traditionally used to invoke images of Hitler. "far right" (in reality - "far left") is normally talking about violent attacks on groups, not just denying work visas to foreigners!
"right-wing" comment - "should actively encourage bringing in Christians and white people from Zimbabwe and South Africa"
Once again - even if you personally prefer that Australia continue its current policy of giving priority to refugees who are rich enough to pay people smugglers to get them to Australia, and criminally-minded enough to not care that this is breaking Australian law, and couldn't give a rat's arse that they're actually taking someone else's place by doing that - suggesting that generally educated and peaceful white refugees from black persecution in Africa be transported to a majority-white country where they are less likely to be attacked for their skin colour is hardly the equivalent of gassing Jews.
Why shouldn't Australians be able to choose immigrants that are less likely to be racist against whites, given the extremely scary attitude expressed by citizens of, let's say, as an example, INDIA? Does Australia have any friggin sovereign say in the matter, or do our policies now get dictated to by India? Whatever happened to that "Australia does whatever America tells it to do" theory anyway? I guess that died when the treacherous Rudd pulled our troops from Iraq like the snivelling little dipshit weasel that he is, I suppose? Before then I can distinctly remember how we all used to do a Nazi goose-step to whatever was being broadcast from Voice of America. We had a whole industry where Voice of America shortwave broadcasts were converted to MP3 and you could see Australians wandering around listening to their ipods and doing the goose-step. Well, maybe it was more of a shuffle. Or a walk. And I suspect that there were one or two insidious Australians who were sneakily listening to rock music, but let's not go there.
"the magazine does not report that three people charged with the murder of Ranjodh Singh were Indian nationals"
Surprise, surprise. Any time there's an inconvenient fact, just leave it out rather than have your horrible, racist worldview shattered.
"Reports about attacks on Indians have damaged Australia's $15 billion a year international education industry"
They have? Damaged by how much? 1%? 50%? I would have thought that getting those figures would be extremely difficult. Are you sure you aren't just measuring seasonal variation?
And regardless, how do you know that it's the reports about attacks that did that, rather than e.g. that huge elephant - GLOBAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN?
I presume there was a survey of the people who didn't turn up to Australian educational institutes who mostly or unanimously quoted "reports on attacks" as their reason rather than "dead broke thanks to the stupid US Democrat policy on mortgages which the Republicans fought tooth and nail but failed to stop"?
Also, given that most people coming here for an education aren't Indian anyway, are you saying Chinese people are reading about attacks on Indians and thinking that they might be next in line when the anti-Indian Indians branch out to anti-Chinese attacks, so they're staying away too? The same survey was presumably translated into Mandarin, right? Just like the original reports were translated into Mandarin, because we all know that Chinese students spend most of their time reading newspaper articles about attacks on Indians rather than playing World of Warcraft like their less intellectual counterparts in backwaters like Australia, right?
"This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited"
Don't look at me, I'm just passing through.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 00:42
2009-12-21
Casus Belli
Wow, what a gift. Tired of waiting for America to find the balls to simply up and invade Iran without specific military provocation, Iran decided to up and invade Iraq by itself, creating a casus belli.
Like wow, man. Those old canards said against Iraq re "has invaded its neighbours" now get to be used against Iran. Speaking of which - Tony Blair has admitted the Iraq war wasn't about WMD in particular. Same as it was with me. Sure I thought Saddam had WMD - I was fooled by his cagey attitude. And sure I wanted them - whatever nastiness the man had available, I preferred him to hit us with it now rather than have future generations being hit with something worse. But as Blair said - even if both of us knew for sure that there were no WMD there, we would still have gone to war. Toppling dictatorships is its own reward. At least in the case where you think the replacement won't be any worse (both in terms of what it will do to its own people, as well as what it will do to the existing free world).
Obama should take the opportunity to get rid of the Iranian dictatorship immediately. It also has the seizure of the British soldiers to use, but the kidnapping they claim (ie lie) was done in Iranian waters. This is an actual border dispute where they have gone on to what Iraq claims as its own territory.
The Iraq war is long over. It has long ago reached the point where the indigenous Iraqi forces were stronger than all challengers and would eventually prevail. Actually that point was reached immediately after some semblance of Iraqi government (the Iraqi Governing Council) was created with sufficient Iraqi security forces to man the Iraqi tanks and air force, and the ability to sell oil to get more of everything. Hell, it could even hire mercenaries, but they really are unnecessary.
US troops do not need to remain there. And nor do they need to go to Afghanistan. Afghanistan needs minimal troops to hold it. Fighting the insurgency can wait for another day (as it has to date). The ANA should be the one doing raids on territory nominally controlled by the Taliban. If they don't have the ability to do that yet, so be it. That's their problem to deal with in their own time.
Iran is the target of opportunity and it should be seized. I am really really interested in hearing what the Iranians have to say about their "Islamic State". Zoroastrianism here we come!
|
Like wow, man. Those old canards said against Iraq re "has invaded its neighbours" now get to be used against Iran. Speaking of which - Tony Blair has admitted the Iraq war wasn't about WMD in particular. Same as it was with me. Sure I thought Saddam had WMD - I was fooled by his cagey attitude. And sure I wanted them - whatever nastiness the man had available, I preferred him to hit us with it now rather than have future generations being hit with something worse. But as Blair said - even if both of us knew for sure that there were no WMD there, we would still have gone to war. Toppling dictatorships is its own reward. At least in the case where you think the replacement won't be any worse (both in terms of what it will do to its own people, as well as what it will do to the existing free world).
Obama should take the opportunity to get rid of the Iranian dictatorship immediately. It also has the seizure of the British soldiers to use, but the kidnapping they claim (ie lie) was done in Iranian waters. This is an actual border dispute where they have gone on to what Iraq claims as its own territory.
The Iraq war is long over. It has long ago reached the point where the indigenous Iraqi forces were stronger than all challengers and would eventually prevail. Actually that point was reached immediately after some semblance of Iraqi government (the Iraqi Governing Council) was created with sufficient Iraqi security forces to man the Iraqi tanks and air force, and the ability to sell oil to get more of everything. Hell, it could even hire mercenaries, but they really are unnecessary.
US troops do not need to remain there. And nor do they need to go to Afghanistan. Afghanistan needs minimal troops to hold it. Fighting the insurgency can wait for another day (as it has to date). The ANA should be the one doing raids on territory nominally controlled by the Taliban. If they don't have the ability to do that yet, so be it. That's their problem to deal with in their own time.
Iran is the target of opportunity and it should be seized. I am really really interested in hearing what the Iranians have to say about their "Islamic State". Zoroastrianism here we come!
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 21:27
2009-12-09
Caught on Camera
I saw an amusing comment here:
"usually young males in their teens and twenties, who are drawn to this sort of mindless fanaticism. While only a few thousand people throughout the non-tribal populations of India and Pakistan, the Internet enables them to find each other. It also enables the police to find them".
This has been the great thing about the internet. People who have fairly obscure interests are able to find each other. Just go to google and stick in "mindless goofbags oil fetish" and hey ho, all of Foddy's comments on this blog come up.
Anyway, the "meeting of great minds" that I was looking for came about in 2003, where we were finally able to make contact with each other. Anyone in the world who had been working on the problem of worldwide freedom - genuinely working on it, with an air of desperation that was willing to use military force to make it happen, rather than simply going on a wankfest like left-wing arseholes like Human Rights Watch, with an emphasis on watch - would have been tracking Iraq closely.
Iraq was not just another liberation in a long string of liberations involving the US. This one was controversial, and part of resolving the controversy was allowing the Iraqis to give their opinions in an environment of freedom. So people all around the world would have been reading the same polls I was reading, looking for the side we hadn't heard from yet. And they would have been having the same arguments at the coffee machine as I was. But we had no way of knowing each other, because we worked in different companies, with different coffee machines, and the coffee machines were usually located in different countries too.
So still no opportunity to meet them. The Iraqi polls would have to suffice, with no other way of finding the people who would come to the obvious conclusion that we needed to speak to intelligent Iraqis in Iraq to find out what the hell they wanted, and how we could assist in building the world that both of us desired.
Then finally the Iraqi blogs came online, and for the first time we had an opportunity not just to discuss things with them, but also with each other. The number of great minds in the world turned out to be quite small, measuring in the hundreds. It seems that all the brand name institutions with cool names like "American Institute for Avoiding Debate" weren't willing to slug it out in the no-holds-barred free marketplace of ideas. Perhaps they can only lose brownie points by engaging in real debate. I can remember the tentative steps that these hundreds of blog commentors took. They were hoping the flogged-beyond-death horse of "Palestine" wouldn't come up and we end up finding that these seemingly nice Iraqis turned out to be yet more brainwashed bigots. It was such a delight to find real live Iraqis who were prepared to stand up for humanity.
These people told us they were the majority, but later we would find out from a secret ballot that they were only 0.3% of the population. But that's fine. The fact that it was non-zero was an extremely important data point, as it meant if you wanted to start defeating the enemy, "Arab Muslims" was the wrong target. That was in fact why I converted to Islam. So that I could explain that "Muslims" were the wrong target, unless you infidels could explain to me why I was a threat to you. As a Muslim, I am willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with you infidels so that we can eliminate our common enemy. I am more than happy - hell, I'm begging even - to point out all the bad (ie non-Mu'tazilite) Muslims to you. You provide the weaponry, and I'll pull the trigger. Guilt-free assistance to this sectarian war in the Muslim community.
Actually, that's what this blog is all about in fact. I tell the US government who *I* want eliminated, and then hope that they decide, however reluctantly, to accede to my request. Not just the US government. It's all governments I wish to influence. But of course, all of them are too chickenshit to get involved in a genuine debate (the sort that raged for nearly a year on the Iraqi blogs as each side brought their best to bear, ultimately getting squashed by message 666, where a checklist of all the differences were laid out - e.g. they support dogmatic notions, we oppose them - they are racists who don't believe in human rights for Arabs, we are anti-racist, etc etc). From time to time I still engage in those debates myself, e.g. I was debating an Australian yesterday, who insisted that because 2 people in America had some shares in oil, the war must be because of oil rather than what the 150 million Americans were adamantly stating to the contrary. Oh, I also got this moron to confirm that the view was not obtained from the Australian education system, thus the problem is not poor education in Australia etc, and thus the solution does not lie in "educating people".
I haven't yet isolated where decent Australians are picking up their decent opinion from though (church, parents, no idea). The person I have the most data on is myself, and even I have trouble figuring it out about myself. I think a large part of it is that I was just born with a tendency to dislike being subjugated (genetic instinct - subjugated people breed less), combined with a lot of brainpower used to figure out how to avoid being subjugated with the state of firepower in the world as it stood (e.g. how to prevent the commies doing to me what they were doing to their own citizens - and not relying on NATO to be superior for eternity, if it even was at the time), bitter opposition to my parents' own attempts to subjugate me by force of arms, and unjust Australian laws protecting the subjugators rather than the subjugated. Also there is "popular culture", which I was very surprised indeed to find out wasn't popular after all. Movies like "The Lighthorsemen" so brilliantly capture the spirit of freedom I thought ran rife throughout Australia, even if it was usually not verbally stated during peacetime to avoid appearing to be nationalists/bigots, and to avoid embarassing those who don't come close to our standards, and to avoid rubbing it in to those (like the beautiful people in Tiananmen Square in 1989) who are unable to participate in it currently and are saddened that they can't do a damn thing about their predicament since it is technically impossible.
So would weekly screening of "The Lighthorsemen" at primary school have the desired effect? No idea. No data available. All I have is one data point for one adult, who had that spirit even before watching the movie. Pretty Damned Useless.
So even though I know the solution, I'm still at a loss to know how to implement it. Getting people to internalize the spirit of freedom (on my/western terms rather than "Islamic State" or "independence from Britain" or other nonsensical use of the word). However, at least I know there's no point wasting resources on "education". Learning maths and physics does not turn arsewipes like AQ Khan into a decent person. In fact, an argument can be made that education is counter-productive, as it helps such arsewipes fulfill their evil ambitions. I'd rather take my chances with the illiterate Afghans of whom 88% or so oppose the (equally illiterate) Taliban. Apparently in Australia they used to teach why the Vietnam war was important, but the streets ended up being filled with arsewipes. I'm not saying that education directly caused the opposing reaction, and thus education of even Australians is harmful, but it's just to highlight the fact that resources are scarce and precious and you need to have at least some rough idea that if the resources are spent on xyz then it is likely to have the desired effect. Obviously the people teaching the importance of Vietnam can't have known in advance that it wouldn't have the desired effect, but without the benefit of hindsight it certainly seemed a reasonable use of resources at the time.
Where do we put resources now? For the most part I don't really know. So, as before, I am no longer funding any charities. I've stopped funding Iraqi and Afghan blogs because I don't think they will do any more than they have already. We basically have pro-freedom people on record explaining their diverse views. I have a couple of feelers out for other places, but nothing to evaluate yet. Interesting note - one of those great minds directly asked me where he should donate money to in order to promote freedom, and I told him that the pro-freedom Iraqi blogs that he was already donating to were the best thing I could think of at that point in time.
|
"usually young males in their teens and twenties, who are drawn to this sort of mindless fanaticism. While only a few thousand people throughout the non-tribal populations of India and Pakistan, the Internet enables them to find each other. It also enables the police to find them".
This has been the great thing about the internet. People who have fairly obscure interests are able to find each other. Just go to google and stick in "mindless goofbags oil fetish" and hey ho, all of Foddy's comments on this blog come up.
Anyway, the "meeting of great minds" that I was looking for came about in 2003, where we were finally able to make contact with each other. Anyone in the world who had been working on the problem of worldwide freedom - genuinely working on it, with an air of desperation that was willing to use military force to make it happen, rather than simply going on a wankfest like left-wing arseholes like Human Rights Watch, with an emphasis on watch - would have been tracking Iraq closely.
Iraq was not just another liberation in a long string of liberations involving the US. This one was controversial, and part of resolving the controversy was allowing the Iraqis to give their opinions in an environment of freedom. So people all around the world would have been reading the same polls I was reading, looking for the side we hadn't heard from yet. And they would have been having the same arguments at the coffee machine as I was. But we had no way of knowing each other, because we worked in different companies, with different coffee machines, and the coffee machines were usually located in different countries too.
So still no opportunity to meet them. The Iraqi polls would have to suffice, with no other way of finding the people who would come to the obvious conclusion that we needed to speak to intelligent Iraqis in Iraq to find out what the hell they wanted, and how we could assist in building the world that both of us desired.
Then finally the Iraqi blogs came online, and for the first time we had an opportunity not just to discuss things with them, but also with each other. The number of great minds in the world turned out to be quite small, measuring in the hundreds. It seems that all the brand name institutions with cool names like "American Institute for Avoiding Debate" weren't willing to slug it out in the no-holds-barred free marketplace of ideas. Perhaps they can only lose brownie points by engaging in real debate. I can remember the tentative steps that these hundreds of blog commentors took. They were hoping the flogged-beyond-death horse of "Palestine" wouldn't come up and we end up finding that these seemingly nice Iraqis turned out to be yet more brainwashed bigots. It was such a delight to find real live Iraqis who were prepared to stand up for humanity.
These people told us they were the majority, but later we would find out from a secret ballot that they were only 0.3% of the population. But that's fine. The fact that it was non-zero was an extremely important data point, as it meant if you wanted to start defeating the enemy, "Arab Muslims" was the wrong target. That was in fact why I converted to Islam. So that I could explain that "Muslims" were the wrong target, unless you infidels could explain to me why I was a threat to you. As a Muslim, I am willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with you infidels so that we can eliminate our common enemy. I am more than happy - hell, I'm begging even - to point out all the bad (ie non-Mu'tazilite) Muslims to you. You provide the weaponry, and I'll pull the trigger. Guilt-free assistance to this sectarian war in the Muslim community.
Actually, that's what this blog is all about in fact. I tell the US government who *I* want eliminated, and then hope that they decide, however reluctantly, to accede to my request. Not just the US government. It's all governments I wish to influence. But of course, all of them are too chickenshit to get involved in a genuine debate (the sort that raged for nearly a year on the Iraqi blogs as each side brought their best to bear, ultimately getting squashed by message 666, where a checklist of all the differences were laid out - e.g. they support dogmatic notions, we oppose them - they are racists who don't believe in human rights for Arabs, we are anti-racist, etc etc). From time to time I still engage in those debates myself, e.g. I was debating an Australian yesterday, who insisted that because 2 people in America had some shares in oil, the war must be because of oil rather than what the 150 million Americans were adamantly stating to the contrary. Oh, I also got this moron to confirm that the view was not obtained from the Australian education system, thus the problem is not poor education in Australia etc, and thus the solution does not lie in "educating people".
I haven't yet isolated where decent Australians are picking up their decent opinion from though (church, parents, no idea). The person I have the most data on is myself, and even I have trouble figuring it out about myself. I think a large part of it is that I was just born with a tendency to dislike being subjugated (genetic instinct - subjugated people breed less), combined with a lot of brainpower used to figure out how to avoid being subjugated with the state of firepower in the world as it stood (e.g. how to prevent the commies doing to me what they were doing to their own citizens - and not relying on NATO to be superior for eternity, if it even was at the time), bitter opposition to my parents' own attempts to subjugate me by force of arms, and unjust Australian laws protecting the subjugators rather than the subjugated. Also there is "popular culture", which I was very surprised indeed to find out wasn't popular after all. Movies like "The Lighthorsemen" so brilliantly capture the spirit of freedom I thought ran rife throughout Australia, even if it was usually not verbally stated during peacetime to avoid appearing to be nationalists/bigots, and to avoid embarassing those who don't come close to our standards, and to avoid rubbing it in to those (like the beautiful people in Tiananmen Square in 1989) who are unable to participate in it currently and are saddened that they can't do a damn thing about their predicament since it is technically impossible.
So would weekly screening of "The Lighthorsemen" at primary school have the desired effect? No idea. No data available. All I have is one data point for one adult, who had that spirit even before watching the movie. Pretty Damned Useless.
So even though I know the solution, I'm still at a loss to know how to implement it. Getting people to internalize the spirit of freedom (on my/western terms rather than "Islamic State" or "independence from Britain" or other nonsensical use of the word). However, at least I know there's no point wasting resources on "education". Learning maths and physics does not turn arsewipes like AQ Khan into a decent person. In fact, an argument can be made that education is counter-productive, as it helps such arsewipes fulfill their evil ambitions. I'd rather take my chances with the illiterate Afghans of whom 88% or so oppose the (equally illiterate) Taliban. Apparently in Australia they used to teach why the Vietnam war was important, but the streets ended up being filled with arsewipes. I'm not saying that education directly caused the opposing reaction, and thus education of even Australians is harmful, but it's just to highlight the fact that resources are scarce and precious and you need to have at least some rough idea that if the resources are spent on xyz then it is likely to have the desired effect. Obviously the people teaching the importance of Vietnam can't have known in advance that it wouldn't have the desired effect, but without the benefit of hindsight it certainly seemed a reasonable use of resources at the time.
Where do we put resources now? For the most part I don't really know. So, as before, I am no longer funding any charities. I've stopped funding Iraqi and Afghan blogs because I don't think they will do any more than they have already. We basically have pro-freedom people on record explaining their diverse views. I have a couple of feelers out for other places, but nothing to evaluate yet. Interesting note - one of those great minds directly asked me where he should donate money to in order to promote freedom, and I told him that the pro-freedom Iraqi blogs that he was already donating to were the best thing I could think of at that point in time.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 17:30
2009-12-08
It Really was about Oil
As anyone who ever listened to an anti-war moron for more than 20 seconds can tell you, they are obsessed with oil.
The reason that they opposed the war was not because they hated Arabs and loved the thought of a cruel sadistic dictator like Saddam murdering, torturing, raping and mutilating 27 million enslaved Arabs.
No, it really was because they were hoping that their anti-war position would pay off after the war was over, and that the Iraqis would feel humiliated by America and do their darndest to prove that they were independent (cf Canada, France, Rudd, etc etc) by refusing to do business with any pro-war country.
And it worked. It actually worked. While I personally couldn't give a rat's arse about China getting oil contracts, it's apparently all the anti-war care about. Well, I hope they're satisfied. But I would prefer it was done more honestly next time. We'll just sign a contract with China, France etc to say that they can have all the oil contracts (or Gin Seng contracts when it's North Korea's turn) for the next decade, and they allow a UN resolution to go through authorizing the war, which makes our life much easier, because there's a large number of morons in the world who consider the UN to be some sort of authority, no matter how many dictators are in it. That way everyone's happy. The Koreans et al get to be free, the Chinese and other scumbag dictators get the oil contracts, we get rid of a threat, and get to see the happy (or relieved) faces of the newly-liberated (e.g. see the Korean "comfort women" after WWII).
Do we have a deal, lefties? A sense of satisfaction for us, freedom for the enslaved, and oil/gin seng/banana contracts for you.
YES WE CAN, left-wing scum, YES WE CAN.
|
The reason that they opposed the war was not because they hated Arabs and loved the thought of a cruel sadistic dictator like Saddam murdering, torturing, raping and mutilating 27 million enslaved Arabs.
No, it really was because they were hoping that their anti-war position would pay off after the war was over, and that the Iraqis would feel humiliated by America and do their darndest to prove that they were independent (cf Canada, France, Rudd, etc etc) by refusing to do business with any pro-war country.
And it worked. It actually worked. While I personally couldn't give a rat's arse about China getting oil contracts, it's apparently all the anti-war care about. Well, I hope they're satisfied. But I would prefer it was done more honestly next time. We'll just sign a contract with China, France etc to say that they can have all the oil contracts (or Gin Seng contracts when it's North Korea's turn) for the next decade, and they allow a UN resolution to go through authorizing the war, which makes our life much easier, because there's a large number of morons in the world who consider the UN to be some sort of authority, no matter how many dictators are in it. That way everyone's happy. The Koreans et al get to be free, the Chinese and other scumbag dictators get the oil contracts, we get rid of a threat, and get to see the happy (or relieved) faces of the newly-liberated (e.g. see the Korean "comfort women" after WWII).
Do we have a deal, lefties? A sense of satisfaction for us, freedom for the enslaved, and oil/gin seng/banana contracts for you.
YES WE CAN, left-wing scum, YES WE CAN.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 21:19
2009-12-03
Flat Earthers
I ran across this article today. It's on a blog that says that Afghanistan is 10 minutes out of the stone age, which is a novel way of putting it.
Anyway, it basically explains the same problem I have when I communicate with people myself. I tend to assume that they will have the same grounding in science and logic, wherever possible looking for double-blind placebo-controlled experiments to validate all information, multiple independent sources etc.
Obviously that assumption is incorrect, but I am used to some sort of basic intelligence where people do question information from biassed sources. Hell, they even question their own government, even when it has a lot of evidence to back it.
So I was surprised to see that Afghans tend to be so dumb that they just take whatever nonsense the Taliban spew as the default truth. I mean, the Iraqis didn't do that with Saddam. They instead got their information from the rumour mill because they knew they couldn't trust anything Saddam said.
Anyway, this conversation that the soldier had:
“They really think that you are so stupid that you would believe something so ridiculous?”
Blank stare. The man searched for something… something that wasn’t coming.
“I’ve been talking with you for several minutes. You are going to go to college in Jalalabad to be a lawyer. I know that you are too smart to believe such a ridiculous lie.” Clearly, he wasn’t; but it was beginning to work on his brain.
should not be down to an individual soldier to come up with. There should be civilians teaching basic logic via TV, radio and schools. I mean, what's the point in having control over the media if you aren't using it to counter the Taliban? We're supposed to have a massive advantage over the Taliban because we get to control the airwaves. But apparently we're not doing it and it's left to some poor soldier to spend his time explaining fundamental logic. It must be infuriating for him that it's left to him.
I have tried raising this with my Afghan contact and will see if he has any suggestion. He's already confirmed what I suspected - the Afghans are racist and are voting along ethnic lines rather than judging who has the best policies/integrity.
While this still allows the Afghans to come up with something better than the Taliban, and I specifically like this quote:
"They don’t want a dialogue; they want to make all the rules. So they blame others for the result of their sociopathic behavior. ... bunch of thugs who cannot grow up and behave like reasonable men capable of living in a society where they are not guaranteed having everything their way."
That's basically what we're fighting. People who haven't grown up. Logic skills that belong in kindergarten. Tolerance levels that are pre-kindergarten.
The war against these things should be fought with education. With friendly forces now controlling the education system and airwaves, it should be possible to make progress. At the current rate it looks like we're talking decades.
|
Anyway, it basically explains the same problem I have when I communicate with people myself. I tend to assume that they will have the same grounding in science and logic, wherever possible looking for double-blind placebo-controlled experiments to validate all information, multiple independent sources etc.
Obviously that assumption is incorrect, but I am used to some sort of basic intelligence where people do question information from biassed sources. Hell, they even question their own government, even when it has a lot of evidence to back it.
So I was surprised to see that Afghans tend to be so dumb that they just take whatever nonsense the Taliban spew as the default truth. I mean, the Iraqis didn't do that with Saddam. They instead got their information from the rumour mill because they knew they couldn't trust anything Saddam said.
Anyway, this conversation that the soldier had:
“They really think that you are so stupid that you would believe something so ridiculous?”
Blank stare. The man searched for something… something that wasn’t coming.
“I’ve been talking with you for several minutes. You are going to go to college in Jalalabad to be a lawyer. I know that you are too smart to believe such a ridiculous lie.” Clearly, he wasn’t; but it was beginning to work on his brain.
should not be down to an individual soldier to come up with. There should be civilians teaching basic logic via TV, radio and schools. I mean, what's the point in having control over the media if you aren't using it to counter the Taliban? We're supposed to have a massive advantage over the Taliban because we get to control the airwaves. But apparently we're not doing it and it's left to some poor soldier to spend his time explaining fundamental logic. It must be infuriating for him that it's left to him.
I have tried raising this with my Afghan contact and will see if he has any suggestion. He's already confirmed what I suspected - the Afghans are racist and are voting along ethnic lines rather than judging who has the best policies/integrity.
While this still allows the Afghans to come up with something better than the Taliban, and I specifically like this quote:
"They don’t want a dialogue; they want to make all the rules. So they blame others for the result of their sociopathic behavior. ... bunch of thugs who cannot grow up and behave like reasonable men capable of living in a society where they are not guaranteed having everything their way."
That's basically what we're fighting. People who haven't grown up. Logic skills that belong in kindergarten. Tolerance levels that are pre-kindergarten.
The war against these things should be fought with education. With friendly forces now controlling the education system and airwaves, it should be possible to make progress. At the current rate it looks like we're talking decades.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 21:32
2009-12-02
Iraqi Shoe Sale
We all remember the racist arsewipe who threw a shoe at Bush. Now the arsehole got a shoe thrown back at him, in a bit of cosmic justice.
The importance of this event is once again highlighting the fact that in every country, people are radically divided. There is no such thing as "Arab unity" or "Muslim unity". And the importance of that is that you are basically doing the wrong thing if you just try to nuke all these groups out of existence. After 9/11, that's exactly what lots of Americans had on their mind, for legitimate reasons.
No, the enemy is ideological, rather than racial or religious. It's true that many groups have been indoctrinated with racial hatred and religious bigotry (as well as both things coming naturally), but every society has its rebels, and those rebels will "interpret" the Koran to match their preconceived ideas of what is good and bad, no matter how much bad stuff is pointed out to them. If you want to see this for yourself, and can't be bothered sifting through all the bad Muslims to find a good one, it's easier to try on a Christian. Just go and stick Matthew 5 vs 17-20 and Leviticus 11 vs 7 in their face and try to get them to stop eating pork. There's zero chance of getting them to confess a lifetime of sin, a guaranteed spot in Hell, and a pledge to cease and desist from now on. The most you will get is some tortured logic worthy of a Special Olympics.
Anyway, the good Iraqi told the truth - that the original shoe-thrower was working for dictatorship in Iraq.
And in other news, Obama has decided to do a surge and withdrawal. Some of these things are quite good. It's good to get "military feedback", ie finding out what can be done with minimal forces. What happened in late 2001 in Afghanistan is the ultimate form of that. And British rule in India is another example. Hell, perhaps British rule in Australia is even better. In Australia the British succeeded in getting the ideology of freedom internalized in Australians before leaving. Obviously there were extenuating circumstances, like the fact that the Australians came from Britain in the first place, but it's the general principle. The sort of enthusiasm you see in the Baltics.
Anyway, I would like to see how little effort is required to keep Afghanistan, not so much "in check" but "reasonably free". Once again, if the US role can be limited to training, and preventing a military coup, and funding the Afghan military, then that would be great feedback to show "war really works".
And once again, the litmus test for war. If you have an opportunity to liberate people, and you can't see any security risk to the free world by doing so - then do it! When you're liberating people from a hostile dictatorship it's a slam dunk. You already have an enemy, so instead of a security risk, you get a security windfall in the process of liberating people.
When selling it to the mothers of the dead US soldiers, put it the other way around. ie you're eliminating a security risk and much of the suffering population was very grateful for your son/daughter's sacrifice too. When we run out of obvious hostiles, the argument will need to be modified a bit, but whatever is required to get the yanks in, do it or say it, as required.
And if you can get some layabouts like Australia to join in, that would be a bloody good move too.
There were some Northern Alliance videos posted on youtube. I'll have to see if there's been any progress in getting subtitles for them. I'd like to know what these allies of mine were saying as they drove the Taliban out, after a very long struggle.
|
The importance of this event is once again highlighting the fact that in every country, people are radically divided. There is no such thing as "Arab unity" or "Muslim unity". And the importance of that is that you are basically doing the wrong thing if you just try to nuke all these groups out of existence. After 9/11, that's exactly what lots of Americans had on their mind, for legitimate reasons.
No, the enemy is ideological, rather than racial or religious. It's true that many groups have been indoctrinated with racial hatred and religious bigotry (as well as both things coming naturally), but every society has its rebels, and those rebels will "interpret" the Koran to match their preconceived ideas of what is good and bad, no matter how much bad stuff is pointed out to them. If you want to see this for yourself, and can't be bothered sifting through all the bad Muslims to find a good one, it's easier to try on a Christian. Just go and stick Matthew 5 vs 17-20 and Leviticus 11 vs 7 in their face and try to get them to stop eating pork. There's zero chance of getting them to confess a lifetime of sin, a guaranteed spot in Hell, and a pledge to cease and desist from now on. The most you will get is some tortured logic worthy of a Special Olympics.
Anyway, the good Iraqi told the truth - that the original shoe-thrower was working for dictatorship in Iraq.
And in other news, Obama has decided to do a surge and withdrawal. Some of these things are quite good. It's good to get "military feedback", ie finding out what can be done with minimal forces. What happened in late 2001 in Afghanistan is the ultimate form of that. And British rule in India is another example. Hell, perhaps British rule in Australia is even better. In Australia the British succeeded in getting the ideology of freedom internalized in Australians before leaving. Obviously there were extenuating circumstances, like the fact that the Australians came from Britain in the first place, but it's the general principle. The sort of enthusiasm you see in the Baltics.
Anyway, I would like to see how little effort is required to keep Afghanistan, not so much "in check" but "reasonably free". Once again, if the US role can be limited to training, and preventing a military coup, and funding the Afghan military, then that would be great feedback to show "war really works".
And once again, the litmus test for war. If you have an opportunity to liberate people, and you can't see any security risk to the free world by doing so - then do it! When you're liberating people from a hostile dictatorship it's a slam dunk. You already have an enemy, so instead of a security risk, you get a security windfall in the process of liberating people.
When selling it to the mothers of the dead US soldiers, put it the other way around. ie you're eliminating a security risk and much of the suffering population was very grateful for your son/daughter's sacrifice too. When we run out of obvious hostiles, the argument will need to be modified a bit, but whatever is required to get the yanks in, do it or say it, as required.
And if you can get some layabouts like Australia to join in, that would be a bloody good move too.
There were some Northern Alliance videos posted on youtube. I'll have to see if there's been any progress in getting subtitles for them. I'd like to know what these allies of mine were saying as they drove the Taliban out, after a very long struggle.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 17:16
