World Challenge

If we analyze the world as it is now, and how we would like it to be, then it becomes a technical challenge to make the appropriate fixes, or provide the appropriate resources, to get from here to there. Any individual can slot themselves into this equation. See where there is a lack of resources being applies to a particular area that would further that agenda. Pouring money into a black hole in Africa that makes an even bigger problem in Africa the next year, is thus a losing proposition, a negative in fact.

Whereas putting money into a war that has the effect of taking away state resources from a dictator and giving that to the people, is a major step in the right direction.

There were certain things missing in the world a few years ago. To a large extent they are still missing, but at least as an individual I have managed to take a lot of them from zero presence to non-zero presence.

Here are some of those things:

1. A concerted effort by non-American governments and NGOs to basically say "this anti-Americanism that caused 9/11 is grossly unacceptable and after all that America has done for the world, we don't even want America to have to do the fighting itself - we want an opportunity to repay America's kindness, so we will take on the burden of protecting America. America, relax while we blitzkrieg through all your enemies".

2. A reformed version of Islam that is not much different to the reformed (from the heathen-burning days) version of Christianity we see today. Mu'tazilah fills this role today.

3. A movement to put an end to racism, especially by non-whites who are the major offenders, and specifically emphasizing racism against whites, who are the most widely persecuted.

4. A movement to liberate all the oppressed (by government/dictator) people of the world, with a sense of urgency given the extremely unhappy state of affairs, and using all available tools (including war) to provide timely resolution.

5. A Manhattan Project to solve the root cause of this anti-Americanism, with a preference - but only a preference - for a non-genocidal solution.

6. International project to create a public domain (genuine public domain, not the Virus Licenced rubbish) version of Windows to break Microsoft's monopoly. It is expected that competing companies would commercialise the PD offering.

7. International project to create a public domain version of MVS, to break IBM's monopoly.

8. International project to ensure that computers have a common language, with C being the obvious choice.

9. An emphasis on disbanding militaries, by finding out what people fear (or do) that makes them want to have such militaries in the first place, and then addressing those fears/desires so that the money can be better spent on improving living standards.

10. American Christian NGO that is working towards eliminating the anti-atheist prejudice in America.

My time these days is mostly spent on tasks 7 and 8. Even though the political tasks are undoubtedly more important, emperical data demonstrates that it is not a productive use of resources, even though the payoff is huge (e.g. a free Iran - no more state-rape). So until some breakthrough happens (such as Ali Fadhil becoming the next US President), the only responsible course of action is to stop squandering scarce resources on that futile task, and to instead put them into something that actually provides movement towards the stated end goal.

Here are some more practical examples.

Here we saw America biting off more than it could chew. It attempted to act high and mighty in defence of some of its enemies (Uzbek Islamists), who give the US precisely zero credit for such otherwise noble intentions, when it should have been keeping its mouth shut and not alienating someone who was providing them assistance. Quite frankly, it's not dissimiliar to the anti-Americanism from Europe when the Americans are providing assistance. Don't expect too much from allies. Be grateful for what they can provide, instead of complaining about what is a bridge too far.

Here we have some figures on relative troop costs. $250,000 for a US soldier in Afghanistan versus $12,000 for an Afghan. ie the American is 20 times more expensive. There are currently about 120,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan vs about 140,000 Afghans. It would make more sense to expand the Afghan security forces to Iraq levels (ie 600,000-strong), and reduce the foreign presence by a corresponding 25,000 or similar to keep the costs the same. There is no particular need to have a 40 year long civil war over by next Tuesday. Preferably reduce the forces even more and deploy them elsewhere (like Iran!). Let the Afghans win this war in their own time in their own way. So long as they get closer to the 600,000 every year, eventually the level of violence will reach whatever the desired level (in comparison with similar countries at peace) is. Obama is quite right in questioning the need to send more US troops to do what is an Afghan job.




Dem Racists Done Be Punked

I hope I don't spend the rest of my life lifting articles from black Americans, but what can I do? I haven't seen someone spell it out like this before.

Here's the rub. These white Democrats like to think of themselves as "hero of the black man". Possibly because they weren't around for that really cool "Martin Luther King" thing, and didn't make it to Woodstock either, but they want some of that glory of being "protector of the lowly Negro". Actually it's white people who need someone to stand up for them in the modern world, but these dipshits are too scared to do that, as is practically everyone else for that matter.

In fact, that's what I consider bravery to be. Not being another schmuck toeing the Democrat line. But to have the guts to stand up for the truth, knowing full well that you're going to incur the wrath of the nasty specimens in the left-wing media. Pauline Hanson did that in Australia. And we have the likes of Kevin doing it in America. These people get labelled as "white supremacist" and "Uncle Tom" immediately, for failing to toe the Democrat line. Basically they become victims of racism/racial slurs for having the "wrong" opinion.

It is this racism from the left that is the real problem. Not just for white victims, but for the blacks who are indoctrinated to hate whites in the first place. They're the ones who end up in jail. Basically the Democrats use the blacks to carry out their dirty work against Republicans. Of course, it sometimes backfires. :-) As the saying goes - "The best conservative is a liberal who has been mugged".

And from the comments section of another post, we finally found someone with the guts to say what needed to be said to even BEGIN to address the REAL problem:

"Yes, most of the blacks who voted for Obama ARE racists! That’s the thing the media doesn’t want discussed!"

The same thing that was done to whites over the course of decades to strip all trace of racism and then go way beyond that to get self-loathing anti-white racism internalized in them, now needs to be done to all the non-whites, in a process that hasn't even STARTED yet. Note - it is that process that is required to properly solve 9/11. No need to go so far as to plant anti-Arab racism in Arabs, but when you stop seeing Arab Iraqis using terms like "Arab Iraq", you'll be on the right track. The Kurds, and 3000 Americans, know what it's like to be genuine victims of racism. But I stress - it's not just the Arabs, and it's not all Arabs. We saw 0.3% of Iraqis vote for Mithal Al Alusi, which is infinitely (*) more than 0%.

(*) Don't bother quibbling about that in the comments section until you have something more useful to contribute like the definitive answer to the age-old question about whether anal-retentive is spelt with a hyphen or not.




More Communist Fronts

In the lead-up to the Iraq war, when Bush was pointing out that Saddam was raping women, yet another reason why this evil man needed to be stopped, I expected these feminist groups, who complain about some really nutty things like the use of "fireman" instead of "fire fighter", would be like 10 million billion trillion times madder about the actual RAPE of women rather than just the use of a word in the English language.

How friggin naive can someone be?

That would be like expecting the left-wing to have 20 squillion complaints about the Soviet Union or Saddam before coming up with a single complaint about America.

I saw this article pointing out that despite the fact that the troops were at similar levels under Obama as under Bush, suddenly war isn't so bad any more. Especially when no-one is funding you to turn up to some funded left-wing protest that has nothing whatsoever to do with war.

Not really related, but even now I am still finding I have to get rid of left-wing shit from my brain. Two more things had to be dropped thanks to this article.

First is "Uncle Tom". Turns out that someone actually read the book. And it turns out that Uncle Tom was a nice guy, Jesus-like, and that he died in order to save the lives of others. How typical of the left make good people out to be bad. Next they'll be saying that Bush was bad for liberating 52 million people. Oh, wait.

Second is the three-fifths. I knew that white people had done things wrong in the past. Little-mentioned is the fact that a shitload of white people died to put an end to some of those wrongs. That's filed under the same category as the Royal Navy putting an end to the slave trade. Regardless, I once saw a black TV judge complaining about "bad constitution" where blacks were 3/5 of a white. It's so old and irrelevant, that I just accepted that it was something that racist whites had come up with, and which had been corrected long ago. Thanks to the internet, once I had the right phrase ("compromise") and a right-wing person telling me it was a lefty lie, I was able to quickly find the reference and found out that it was a result of intra-white conflict trying to eliminate slavery, and anti-slavery whites didn't want pro-slavery whites from boosting their (white) representation by using their beholden slaves. Ideally it would have been 0/5 non-compromise. But you can't fix all problems instantaneously, so 3/5 was used.

Apologies to white Americans for thinking bad things about your ancestor's constitution without fact-checking what some left-wing racist scumbag on TV said. It's not like I've never known similar lies to be told, at least not every single minute of every single day, about Australian whites. I should have known better. Humble apologies.




Independent Observer

During the Iraq war, there was one important thing that I could provide to the debate, that was otherwise hard to come by. I wasn't a friggin Seppo!!! I wasn't even a Christian.

I was thus able to step through the logic of why liberating Iraq was a good action, nay, an extremely good action, a noble cause, without any opportunity for the left-wing to dismiss my opinion as "biassed American imperialist". The Americans themselves weren't imperialists either. They are good people. If you bother to talk to them, you will find out that they are nice people. They don't try to rip you off, or discriminate against you because you're not American. They will be the very best of friends with you if you connect at a personal level. Hell, I'd be willing to consider them as honorary Australians, since they seem to follow a good deal of the Australian (or at least, my) spirit.

Recently I stumbled across some hard-hitting blogs by black Americans. In the past if I wanted to read right-wing views I would go to some of the famous American blogs, which I think are mostly done by whites, except for Michelle Malkin, who is ethnic Filipino from memory.

But now that I have discovered these black blogs, I think I will stick with them. It's the same information, but since it's coming from a black person, it helps validate the logic by ensuring that race bias is taken out of the equation. Many of my pro-Iraq-war arguments were nothing that you couldn't get from an American too. Most of it was just damned obvious. ie is freeing 27 million people from a cruel dictatorship good or bad in your opinion? But man, I really liked to stick the knife into these left-wing scum. I would actually hound a left-wing Australian etc and after mentioning the 27 million recently-freed slaves, say that that was surely worthy of a simple "thanks America", so that some of the American participants could see how grateful this left-wing scumbag was. Of course none of them could ever muster a simple "thanks" (nevermind like this), but it was enjoyable just to watch the scum squirm as they were cornered by an Australian trying to get them to actually thank our American brothers for all their wonderful deeds.

Anyway, as you can expect from any right-wing political site, there's so much to quote that you may as well cut and paste the entire blog and/or abandon your own blog, because the cold hard logic that is required is there for all to see. So it is with great reluctance that I quote just a couple of gems.

Here we have:

"In fact, that you’re even reading this blog means that you are automatically racist (unless of course you aren’t /White/ Euro-American. in which case you are a sell-out, self loathing, Uncle Tom… unless you’re Asian or Latino in which case we don’t care what you think because you don’t matter in the racial politics of liberalism, except when we want to make a campaign poster or talk about illegal immigration and how Republicans hate you all… but I digress)."

Man, the utter contempt we share for the left. I really like that Euro-American. Never heard that before. Yeah, I don't want to be called white. It's offensive, man! Actually, I think "Euro" is a bit of a slang/slur/derogatory. A bit like calling Aborigines "abos". I want the full name typed. Euroweenie. I mean, European-American. Hang on. There are continental Europeans and off-continental Europeans (spent a lot of time fighting each other too), so I think it's probably best to tell it how it is - Continental-European-American (if you're a wog), or Off-Continental-European-American (if you're a Limey). Anything less than that would be offensive. Similar how it must be offensive to an African-American to be called a "black American", which would potentially associate him with all those Curry Munchers, sorry, Non-native-Indian-Well-Still-Native-But-Native-of-India-Indian-Indian-Americans. Anyway, it's rather that the left-wing has managed to get such tight control of the media that basically some opinions can't be aired. That's pretty tragic for a democracy. Fortunately the internet arrived in time.

And here's the other one:

"No mention of how when some white liberals find out that someone is a black conservative, they demand to know why you don't fit the sterotype."

Right. Basically the onus should be the other way around. Um, did you listen to the very clear logic laid out by McCain about why we need to stay in Iraq etc etc? Why do you think that black people would have trouble following that logic, when 50% of white people somehow manage to? Do you think we're all stupid and incapable of rational thought or something? You know all about Condaleeza Rice's intellect, right? So you can see that, but still think that all blacks are mindless morons that goose-step to the Democrat party line? Tell me more about why you think that. Next you'll be telling me that it's Arab "culture" to want a sadistic dictator like Saddam in power, and also part of Arab "culture" to be happy to have your daughter raped and your tongue cut out, right?

Uh-oh, I think I called someone black. I'd better dob myself in to the anti-anti-reverse-racism discrimination committee or whatever they're calling themselves these days.

Actually, before I leave, the conservative commenters correctly stated what a joke Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is when he didn't do anything in his less than 1 year in office to produce peace. Or did he? I would argue that getting the Russians to not be such nutcases is really and truly peace. Not merely non-combat either. That truly is peace between USA and Russia. Yes, I know it is Russia's fault, and I know that the USA can't be held hostage to Russian paranoia, but regardless, I consider this to be taking a second step. Also, it should be noted that Russia allowed ex-Soviet territory into NATO, and quite frankly, that's like 50 steps already and I really did expect more from NATO. I have argued before that NATO headquarters should move to Russia for joint planning. Or something along those lines. Hey, it'd be real cool if Obama picked up that theme.

I can't believe I'm still talking about Obama. However, I must continue. Sounds like Obama doesn't want to send more troops to Afghanistan. That's not a problem either. The Afghan National Army will win any war eventually, regardless of whether the US sends 200 special forces (like they started off with, and had dramatic success), or whether it sends 200,000. It really doesn't matter. The important thing to do was to switch the government and fund the ANA. That's it. Anything more than that is a bonus, or perhaps "playing around on the edges". If Obama wants to use troops somewhere else, that's fine by me. So long as they leave a footprint of 200, or be very sure they have reliable Afghans to replace those 200, that's perfectly fine.




Gates of Vienna

There is a time and place for bashing people to death with logic. That's what I tend to do personally.

There is also a time and a place for bashing people to death with steel. That's what happened when the Muslims tried to beseige Vienna.

There is also a time and place for subtle diplomacy. As mentioned before, Obama seems to be doing a pretty good job there in some areas. I don't know why the Russians can't just get on board with the neocon agenda. Why aren't they neocons too? I don't know why the left-wing scum in western countries are more worried about imaginary things that the US could theoretically do than actual Iraqis having their tongues cut out. My best guess is that they were just born sociopaths, but it doesn't make much difference. You have to deal with it either way. You have to deal with the current reality of lobotomized Democrats rather than the reality you would prefer. As such, while we have psycho Russians in the world, having Obama to placate them is a good thing.

Here is another one of those. Someone interviews "Mohammed", to see what he would think about the current batch of Muslims, especially those that don't follow the Mu'tazilah sect.

Ok, so they don't mention Mu'tazilah by name, but that's the general idea.

BTW, I saw a great quote from Churchill:

"If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

Again, for those of you who mention "why not Uzbekistan" (and we both know that you don't actually care about Uzbekistanis, especially the Islamic militants, all you care about is harming the USA) - it's that simple. In war, you generally do whatever is necessary to win. The consequences of losing are far greater than any temporary unpleasantness that needs to be endured. We simply don't have the luxury of unnecessarily alienating those who don't live up to our expectations. It would be wonderful if we were. But we aren't. Again, need to deal with current reality, rather than how things would work in an ideal world. Speaking of ideal worlds - part of this is CREATING the ideal world most people, even lefties, say they want. Maybe not going as far as creating the communist utopia, but something towards that goal. Something closer than tongue-chopping.




Geert Wilders

I'll take a break from quoting Obama. I ran across some great proposals from Geert Wilders.

The basic situation is this:

If Hitler prefixed "Mein Kampf" with "God told me last night ...", it wouldn't suddenly turn National Socialism from abhorrent political ideology into "a religion of peace".

It needs to be treated as the political ideology that it is. When I look at Hinduism or Buddhism, I see mostly "quaint" rituals. Not some grand plan to do something (anything). Not even a grand plan to have a Buddha in every room of every house in the country.

Whereas Islam (at leas the non-Mu'tazilah sects) have a plan to do pretty much what Saudi Arabia already does, ie no booze, no pork, no churches.

Anyway, here's the money quote:

"Human rights protect the freedom of individuals but they do not protect ideologies".

Regardless of whether it's National Socialism, Communism or Islam, these political ideologies need to be actively fought against. Not to stop individuals from being communists/socialists. But to prevent such people from indoctrinating children to be that. The education system should expose these ideologies for what they are. Honestly, we need to start with simply standards of evidence. The number of people who believe that Bush did 9/11 is just beyond the pale. It's no wonder the Muslims don't do any better when we have such a problem with Americans. And Australians too for that matter. I'm really at a loss when a non-Muslim Australian tells me that the Republicans could be killing Democrats in America to win the election, and keeping it quiet. Yeah, and shall I assume that she snatches and eats babies and keeps it quiet too?

Honestly, what a world. How do you top that?




Our Lovely Surrender Monkey

As I've said before - Obama had me fooled. I really thought he was going to throw Iraq. He had voted against it, and I saw him on TV in a debate saying that he had been given a bracelet from a mother who had said "don't let anyone else die like my son". It sounded like he was pretty passionate about deliberately throwing Iraq. I would have settled for absolutely anything. 200 special forces (like Afghanistan) plus air support is enough to ensure that no military coup or external invasion would work.

Anyway, as this article says, sometimes a rebranding is required. Not because America has done anything wrong, either. The only thing it has done wrong in recent times is to snatch territory (Kosovo) away from a liberal democracy (Serbia) to create a racist, religious-bigotted stated, going against assurances to Russia and Serbia that they would do something very different. Unbelievable. But I digress.

Anyway, so long as Obama doesn't throw Iraq, which he hasn't, I don't have a problem with Obama doing some sort of "good cop" routine. We get to keep a new member of the free world (although I had hoped to find a higher percentage of nice people there). Then Obama basically gives an apology to some of the walking wounded/paranoid of the world and they start being less of pricks.

The job in Afghanistan needs to be completed, which he is doing - raising troop levels. I'm not sure he'll be able to expand it to Pakistan - not even the tribal territories - but simply building up Afghanistan is good enough for his first term. He might surprise me by invading Iran too, but I really doubt that. If he does that, then give him another term. Otherwise, with Iraq not thrown, Afghanistan consolidated, the American people will hopefully have another opportunity to get a Republican back in power to do the real work.

Obviously if Obama can manage to get a UN resolution calling for a UN force to invade Iran and Pakistan and North Korea - then wow, man.




The Alternative War

I just read a couple of articles I stumbled across today when trying to find one of my own blog posts to reference in fact!

The first one has these things to note in it:

1. Vietnam was a battle in a war.
2. He lists the enemies in the last 3 wars (note that I have categorized these myself in message 666 rather than treat them as "suprising enemies that seem to pop up out of the blue for no known reason").
3. He says, as I do, that we weren't there to govern or provide security - just to do the minimum to allow the Iraqis to do that.
4. He explains that as an American, if Bush had filled mass graves, he would want a foreign invasion too.
5. He points out that people incorrectly assume that there was a better way of fighting the war than this very very low-cost one. War isn't like that.

Basically I agree with everything he said. Whenever I read things like this, I wonder how anyone can possibly argue with it, and sure enough, I went looking, and the Left manages to find some way of turning this into a reason why we should leave the Iraqi territory as a place on Earth for institutionalized rape/torture/murder/mutilation.

The second is this. Here, he explains what might have been, had the war been fought with sufficient troops to actually govern the country. Basically too expensive, and subject to a military coup or equivalent. Basically it's a tough slog to do what we needed to do. We needed to set up new security forces untainted by the past (and get the Iraqi people to truly believe that, which they do, because it's true). We needed to get those security forces trained along US lines. Not just so that they don't stage military coups. Not just so that they protect their citizens rather than harm them on a dictator's orders. But also to let them know that you don't win wars by having lots of brave men baring their chests. You win it with air-to-air missiles. So therefore it is pointless for them to waste their oil money on weapons they don't need with grand delusions of defeating Israel when they know they're never going to get the weapons they would need to do that.

Having said that, the "wham, bam, thankyou ma'am option" with 500,000 troops would work in most other scenarios anyway. There is nowhere else on earth, literally, where it is necessary to delicately replace a dictator with a democracy. We already have Chinese (Taiwan) democracies, Russian democracy (as poor as that may be), now we have Arab Muslims (Iraq), and we have African demoacracies. And Latin America. There is nowhere left for the claim to go out saying "xyz people can't handle democracy, they need a brutal dictator to keep them in line".

The sort of places where you would require forced governance are Gaza, Haiti, South Africa, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, Rwanda. And if you want to use large forces in those countries, that's fine. Large forces were used in Germany and Japan too. It's mostly a waste of money though. You can achieve what needs to be achieved with small forces. Use valuable resources sparingly! But use them!!!


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?