The Board is Set

My last post garnered a trackback to this post. And I thought that was a good way of putting it. In the same way that the Australian Lighthorse charging Beersheba led to the capture of Jerusalem. The world is currently a giant chess board, or perhaps a jigsaw puzzle. The unexpected length of time Iraq has taken to win has kept the suspense going for longer than expected. Will Iran be liberated or not? There were scary times in both Australia and USA late 2004, but luckily both pro-war parties were reelected. Which effectively sealed Iraq's fate as a victory. There's no way the remnants of the insurgency can be serious contenders against the new Iraqi Army in 3 years from now. According to Kevin it's all over bar the shouting.

Let's have a closer look at the Iranian board. I have recently had discussions with a couple of people who think that the Iranian government must be OK because "elections" were held.

Well this article from the BBC sums up most of the salient points.

First we have this quote:

"But the presidency is not Iran's top post. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has more power."

ie the "president" only has a fairly ceremonial role and the parliament is only an advisory body.

And then, the religious dictators get to veto anyone they want, to make the vote a complete farce, vis:

"This time over 1,000 hopefuls including 93 women registered, but the Guardian Council ruled that only six - all men - qualified."

Please don't be fooled, people. This government needs to be overthrown.

But will the US Government carry through? Will it act against a government with an official policy of "Death to USA", which supports terrorism, which is developing nukes, even before we consider the humanitarian reasons for liberating Iran? All I know is that the board has been laid out in such a manner that you'd have to be the thickest of the thick to turn down an opportunity to liberate Iran. The way Bush seems to be pursuing diplomatic methods doesn't endear me with confidence that he'll do the right thing. But as Churchill famously said "You can rely on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted every other option". I'd rather just see a unilateral declaration of war by the Prime Minister of Australia than wait around for America to stop dilly-dallying around.

We live in interesting times. With a bit of luck, this is the end of history. The entire world part of NATO. And we can finally start reducing military spending. Everyone having the same rational and humanist ideology - ANTI-SUBJUGATION.





Here is something I have been doing all my life, and it never occurred to me that others weren't doing exactly the same thing. I noticed that the world was hostile and I needed to see who I could ally with in order to gain protection. This was my main goal. Protection of myself and protection of others. I was on the US's side during the Cold War, when I was a child. But I got a shortwave radio (when I was living in Fiji) and listened to the USSR's propaganda as well. I was on the UK's side during the Falkland's War and I was quite disappointed that Australia didn't join in the fight. I don't like to see a member of the free world having to fight alone.

I lie awake at night trying to "crunch numbers". Trying to see if there is some way we can get Russia on our side so that the free world's ideology will be victorious. Seeing if we can topple some dictators and end up with allies instead of enemies. How do we get India on our side? They already have a democracy, but they're not joining the team. Why not? These are the problems that I seek to address. I do not have any hangups about the use of force. I consider the use of force against a dictator to be a wonderful thing. I do not hesitate to use calculated violence to overthrow someone else who rules by force of arms. I have always hesitated about mindless violence though. I tried (mostly unsuccessfully) to avoid fights at school because they served no purpose. But calculated violence is a thing of great beauty.

So this is where I am coming from. I spend my time reading such things as the "Daily News" at Serbia and Montenegro's ministry of foreign affairs. It is truly beautiful that placing a few bombs on Yugoslavia caused it to change from a anti-NATO dictatorship into a pro-NATO democracy. As far as I'm concerned, they can have Kosovo back now. I was keen to break territory away from Milosevic's dictatorship, but now that it has turned into a democracy I want it to stay together. That is the modern trend - towards integration into larger structures such as the EU, not splitting apart. Incidentally, Russia felt betrayed when it saw S&M trying to join NATO. In my analysis, Russia hasn't grasped the concept of alliances based on CURRENT IDEOLOGY instead of race or historical grievances. S&M's government has wanted to join NATO's Partnership for Peace program for years now. But they are being denied entry until they find Mladic. I think that's pretty unfair myself. I don't think they know where he is.

Basically I want to snuff out the enemy ideology, ie governments that are dogmatic (e.g. Communist), non-humanist (e.g. racist), or subjugating (i.e. dictators). I can see the whites of their eyes and I want to go in for the kill. The free world has a MASSIVE advantage against tinpot dictators if only we choose to exercise it. I have chosen to spend all my time studying these countries to come up with the best plan to gain allies. My deliberations lead me to choose Iran as the most lucrative target. 70 million allies waiting to happen. The Iranian youth have been smart and boycotted the election allowing a radical to get elected, in an attempt to force our hand and get us into action against the Iranian regime.




Finland Finesse

Open Letter to Tarja Kaarina Halonen, President of Finland.

Dear Madam,
First of all I would like to thank you for your country's valiant effort in the Winter War against the Soviet Union. That gave Hitler the impression that the USSR was weak and prompted him to invade the USSR, which saved the day. I'd also like to say how sad it was that the UK was unable to provide support to Finland during that war. Believe me, the UK and allies (such as my country - Australia) would have loved to be in a position to protect your beautiful democracy against the Soviet Union's dictatorship. But unfortunately the UK was not in a position to do so.

But now I would like to focus on issues of today. I can understand Finland needing to be neutral while the threat of the USSR loomed large. But that threat has now receded. I would urge you to join NATO and stand up with the rest of the free world. The days of cowtowing to the Soviet dictatorship are over. I hope one day that NATO will reach Australia so that Finland and Australia are united in a mutual defence pact. That would be wonderful. The case for Finland joining NATO has comprehensively been made in the following article, which I urge you to read:


And I refer you to the last paragraph in the Conclusion:

"The dilemma is that it is currently too early to answer the above questions with any certainty. The danger is that it may always be too early until it is too late."

Now is your chance to join NATO and secure your beautiful country. Please don't put NATO in a spot where Russia is opening hostilities against Finland and you are calling for NATO's help. You need to get membership in ADVANCE of any hostilities. I know Anglophone mentality. The Anglophones will risk a nuclear exchange with Russia in defence of an EXISTING member of NATO but will NOT engage in nuclear exchange in defence of a country that chose to remain outside NATO.

Also, I'd like to tell you that I am very disappointed that Finland didn't join the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq. The free world needs to stand together, regardless of formal alliances. This was an opportunity to turn a dictatorship into a democracy. You should have been champing at the bit to see this happen, and for Iraq to turn into a beautiful country just like your own. Where were you? Do you have a concept of being in the TRIBE of ANTI-SUBJUGATORS?

Yours sincerely,
Paul Edwards, Australia.




Iraq Diversion

Former US presdident, Bill Clinton, has complained that the Iraq war has diverted attention from the War on Terror. Nothing could be further from the truth. The War on Terror is proceeding in the most optimal manner possible. ie US resources have been deployed in a logical manner. Minimal resources required to do the job have been placed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

However Pakistan is the most interesting place. There are tribal areas in Pakistan that have never actually been conquered. The British drew up a map including these territories without first conquering it. And the problem with lawlessness remains today. These areas still have slavery being practiced. It is in these tribal areas that it is believed that Osama Bin Laden is hiding. Pakistan has been making moves to try to assert control over this territory.

What exactly is Clinton recommending be done about the War on Terror? Does he want an invasion of Pakistan? Even though Pakistan is being cooperative and it is possible we can get everything we need in Pakistan via diplomacy? I think we should not open a war front with a fairly cooperative country like Pakistan. That is a waste of resources. The resources are better spent toppling an uncooperative regime like Saddam's was. In addition, toppling Saddam has provided a lucrative environment of freedom where we can study Arabs. This is an integral part of the War on Terror. It is not a diversion.

The US continues to do the right thing. But it is vitally important that after Iraq is secured that Iran is toppled next. We need to know whether we can kick-start a revolution using air power and special forces. Iran will shape the future of combat. Regime change in Iran is easier to do than conquering never-conquered areas of Pakistan. We should leave the difficult job till last, and see how much of the job has been completed by Pakistan itself before we open a new war front. If we need to fight Pakistan, it would be good to have a democratic Iran which may let us use their territory to attack into Pakistan (possibly via Afghanistan also).

Clinton - you had your chance. Now is time to let someone who knows how to secure the free world do his job.




Securing Europe

Winston Churchill once said "The day will come when the joy bells will ring again throughout Europe". Well, the day that I think most represents that was watching the Bulgarian minister as his flag was raised at NATO Headquarters. You can see that here and the other 6 countries can be found here.

NATO is the premiere alliance. Some people think that it is moribund. Because it requires approval from all 26 members before it will act. But to me this is exactly how it should be. A non-aggressive alliance. It's meant to be defensive and it should stay that way to avoid spooking places like Russia and China. You should see some maps of NATO and NATO Partnership for Peace. The NATO juggernaut is solid from the US, across to Europe, all the way down to Turkey. Austria and Switzerland are now totally enclosed by NATO and thus protected, so Austria should be in a position to ditch its semi-enforced neutrality. Iraq and Afghanistan, two newly-freed countries, are in a strong position to join NATO, or at least, NATO PfP themselves. Iraq borders a NATO country (Turkey). Afghanistan borders several NATO PfP countries, and if we topple Iran, then Afghanistan would be linked to Europe via Turkey and Iran. World freedom is so wonderful. NATO has unimaginable reach.

There's still the problem of what to do about Russia. We have the NATO-Russia Council already, but I think it needs to be strengthened into a formal alliance. I believe the thing that is standing in the way of this happening is Russia's continued presence in Georgia and Moldova. I haven't seen any commitment from NATO on this, but I can't see any reason why NATO shouldn't simply come out and say "if you get out of Georgia and Moldova, we'll create a NATO-Russia alliance". I could see a reason for not saying that when the Baltics joined. NATO didn't want to set a precedent for countries becoming members of NATO only with Russia's permission. But that doesn't apply for Georgia and Moldova. They are not ready for NATO membership yet anyway (take a look at the map of world freedom on my site). I don't see a strategic problem with simply letting Russia know where it stands - withdrawal from those two countries will eventuate in a formal NATO-Russia alliance. Then we will be in a better position to protect places like Taiwan.




NATO-Russia Alliance

Open letter to Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO Secretary General.

Dear Sir,
I am concerned that NATO is not approaching Russia in the most sensible manner. From the Russian point of view, it appears that Russia is retreating while NATO is advancing. It looks dangerous. Especially when combined with the fact that NATO appears to be anti-Russian. The assurances that NATO continually gives to Russia are insufficient. NATO needs to explain who it is an alliance against. I believe I have the answer to that.

NATO is a NATURAL alliance of non-subjugators and anti-subjugators against any potential subjugator. By putting its forces into Georgia and Moldova, Russia is causing itself to be characterized as a subjugator. Russia doesn't realize this, and NATO doesn't know how to explain it properly. You need to explain to Russia that by pulling its forces out of Georgia and Moldova, it will suddenly become a non-subjugator and an alliance with the non-subjugators in NATO will suddenly be possible.

I can understand why no deal was done with Russia when enabling the Baltics to join NATO. This made it clear that Russia could not veto new members joining NATO. However, the situation with Georgia and Moldova is not so crucial, as neither country will be qualified to join NATO in the short term. I recommend spelling out to Russia exactly what will be available to it if it vacates Georgia and Moldova. Specifically, I think that the NATO-Russia Council should be changed to the NATO-Russia ALLIANCE with mutual guarantees of security. ie an attack on Russia is an attack on NATO and vice-versa. I further recommend that the NATO-Russia Alliance should be based in Russia. I also recommend that unless a NATO member has a special need to do so, NATO should no longer meet at 26. It should always meet at 27.

I am a big supporter of NATO - I believe it is the most wonderful organization in the world, and I hope that Australia can eventually join. But it is vital that we secure Russia's support instead of squandering this opportunity and driving Russia into China's arms. There is no need to sell out Georgia and Moldova. But we should be offering the largest possible carrot to Russia. At the moment that is not being done. The Russians instead feel left out in the cold, which I know is not what NATO really intends.




Various Enemies

On this anniversary of Sept 11, let me describe the ideological clashes that need to be overcome in order to fully win the War on Terror and end things like the gang-rapes in New Orleans.

The left-wing has done an excellent job of making out WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) responsible for all the trouble in the world. Such intense pressure has been put on WASPs that they have basically become extremely good humanists, almost impossible to fault. But still the left-wing persists that because WASPs are in power in the US, it is WASPs who are responsible for all the world's ills. This is avoiding solving the real problems in the world, which aren't being caused by WASPs. Here is what I believe to be a complete list of all the bigots spewing hatred who need to be either converted (to humanists), killed or pacified (as a short term option only, otherwise terrorism will persist):

1. anti-Americanism that can be found the world over.

2. anti-rich people that can be found amongst left-wing voters. Rich people contribute more in taxes than anyone else, and they provide employment for no-hopers and with their after-tax money they even donate heaps to charities, instead of spending it on booze. Be grateful. Be very grateful. And anti-conservative (ie people who vote for capitalism) can be included here (the so-called forelock tuggers). In general, this is bigotry against people in power, instead of objectively analysing their behaviour. It manifests in comments like "you're lucky" instead of "you're deserving, I admire what you did and will try to emulate it myself, I'd like to contribute as much as you do to charity myself".

3. Muslims using out-group psychology that allows only them to get into Heaven (without having to be humanists), with secular humanists et al going to Hell.

4. Arabs who are simply racist, whose only source of pride is the fact that the Koran was written in Arabic and Mohammed (who was a thief, rapist, mass-murderer etc) was an Arab. Talk about dysfunctional.

5. Fundamentalist Christians who can be found in places like Ireland and America who use out-group psychology to deny entrance to Heaven for atheists et al and/or treat the bible as infallible.

6. Nationalist Americans who don't care about human rights abuses in foreign countries, since only Americans matter.

7. Black Americans who never have anything nice to say about whites and are instead being taught by their parents that white folk owe them something. Nevermind how many whites died killing other whites to bring them their freedom. Sheesh.

8. Anti-British that is found especially in America due to the war of Independence, and found in other places due to colonialism. Say something nice about the industrial revolution and relatively benign colonial rule or keep your filthy mouths shut. Oh yeah, and the Irish (who don't join NATO because they don't want to be associated with the British) should take personal responsibility for not knowing not to grow single-crop. Fortunately capitalism and freedom of speech enabled that technical problem to be fixed.

9. Russians who have never been taught humanism, so can't understand that America is liberating people not subjugating them. And the same deal with China.

10. Anti-French that is found in America. Guess what guys? The War of Independence was a FRENCH MILITARY VICTORY. Throw away your comic books and actually learn factual history. Next you'll be saying that the Northern Alliance beat the Taliban. And glorious guerillas didn't win in Vietnam either - NVA ***tanks*** did in 1975. BTW, French are taking bullets for Americans in Kabul at the moment. Time to say "thanks".

11. American constitutional supremacy, where Americans have been taught that there is something magical about their constitution (especially insane gun laws) that makes them freer than any other first world country, not even Australia is their equal - good grief. The constitution is a dogma if you treat "these truths as self-evident".

12. Anti-monarchy, where even a ceremonial Queen is considered to be some sort of oppressive force.

13. The Commonwealth should be disbanded, as an exclusive club of no-hopers that can't even bring themselves to condemn Zimbabwe.

14. People wearing religious symbols that say "I've got one of these so I'm going to heaven, while you don't, so you're going to hell".

15. Anyone waving a flag other than NATO's flag, or perhaps a flag belonging to the Australian right-wing (pro-war) Party, which is an ideology that understands the concept of liberating others to install a secular capitalist liberal democracy, for no other reason than everyone deserves to be free, including the Burmese.

16. Christians who say "there are no atheists in foxholes" or who think that atheists are psychopaths or communists instead of assuming they are secular humanists, and then have the audacity to make them pledge allegiance to the Loch Ness Monster.

17. Anti-male by the feminazis in the west. Anti-female elsewhere.

18. Anti-non-indigenous by the indigenous. Especially against white Australians, when such an enormous amount of effort has been made to improve the lives of Aborigines. They were never enslaved, they were helped. The reason they die younger is because of substance abuse and because they sleep next to diseased dogs based on the theory "this dog attracts diseases away from me", which is a lose/lose/lose situation for the Aborigines, the dog, and last and least, the white Australians.

19. Anti-locals by immigrants.

20. People who think that all whites in the American south are redneck members of the KKK.

21. Europeans who think that they are superior than Americans because they don't have the death penalty unlike the barbaric Americans. Nevermind any consideration for caring for the rights of future victims who get deterred by criminals getting what they deserve. (not scientifically proven either way).

22. Isolationist religious bigots in the US who care about the unborn child in America, but don't care about Iranian children being raped by the Mullahs. Don't care about crack babies screaming in hospital wards either. Or Americans living in dumpsters. All rationalized away. The more unwanted children brought into the world, the less resources there are available to get people out of dumpsters, or do medical research etc etc. Everyone has the right to a dignified life, not a nightmare as a crack baby.

23. People who think that Americans are smarter than other countries, and especially people who credit to this to multiculturalism. The Germans are kick-arse intellectuals. Pay some respect to the people who invented blind testing of medicine. Pure Aryan blood. Beautiful.

In addition, "freedom = everyone having the same pay" and "freedom = rule by a local instead of a British governor" and "freedom = right to break the rules" and "freedom = revolt" needs to be replaced with "freedom = ability to change/influence the rules" and "freedom = right to not live in fear" and "freedom = right to express your ideas freely" and "freedom = not subjugated".

And when civilizing Australian Aborigines, the way to do it is to appeal to the male leader of the tribe that if he does xyz he will be given abc. The herd will follow. Do not just go and build a whole lot of things and provide a whole lot of food for free. It collapses the local building and food economy. Better to HIRE them to do various things (and step them through civilization).




Not So Great Britain

Open Letter to Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Dear Sir,
First of all, thanks for your contribution to liberating Iraq. It was much appreciated by those that matter (ie the anti-subjugators).

However, I was very disappointed by your reaction straight after the liberation of Iraq. You immediately ruled out doing the same in Iran. Why? It almost looked to me like you only turned up to Iraq so that you could attempt to sabotague the coalition from within, by setting yourself up as arbiter on when to go to war. Trying to keep the US military on a leash. Why? Are you a 5th column or what?

I also note that your country has never apologized for standing idly by, in the middle of the Cold War even, while thousands of South Vietnamese allies were frogmarched off to commie gulags against their will. Why? After all America has done for the UK, you didn't see fit to show up to help America help the South Vietnamese. Why?

We are at a unique point in history when we have an opportunity to liberate most of the world. This includes ending the Iranian holocaust, which on top of state-slavery includes institutionalized rape. Why aren't you interested in doing this? I'm suspicious that you have never even considered the problem from the point of view of an Iranian rape victim. Why? Do you not have empathy for strangers? If not, can I recommend you change religion to Mu'tazilah?

I don't mind admitting that I would have much preferred to see the Tories get elected in the UK. It seems that left-wing parties across the world have no concept of empathy for the oppressed in the Middle East. But empathy aside, the Iranian government is engaged in terrorism against Israel. Oh, but that brings up another point. You don't seem to have empathy for the Israelis getting blown up in busses either. And what about the Iranian policy of "Death to the US"? Are you not interested in standing up to protect the US either? Is this payback for the US failing to stand up to protect you at the outset of both World Wars? Well, I'm an Australian. And Australia stood up to protect you, on time, in both World Wars. And now I'm asking you to stand up, not to protect Australia, but to protect the US - the object of Iran's venom. I wish I was dealing with the right-wing UK party instead of the left-wing, but I have no choice but to play with the cards as they have been dealt.

Please do the right thing in Iran. The world is watching. History is recording. Don't go down on the wrong side of history like you already have in Vietnam.




Fatwa Against the Hijab

As Caliph of International Mu'tazilah, I hereby make the following religious ruling:

The hijab is not to be worn. It was invented in Lebanon so that Shi'ite women would be clearly marked out, and thus spared sexual harassment, and rape, by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian gunmen. It is shocking that someone would even have the idea of marking out certain women for rape and not others. It is the duty of all women to protect all women. Especially women in the west who are legally protected. Take off the hijab and stand united with all women to say that rape of any woman is unacceptable, and that any attempt to subjugate women will end in failure.




Australian GG responds

This is late (I received it 2005-07-20), because I've had more important things to post. I'm still waiting for PeteS to respond to my comments, but if he's busy I don't want to delay posting the backlog of posts I have on hand.

So here is the response from the Australian Governor-General (relating to my request that he overthrow the Australian Government and give us a Bill of Rights to protect us from our government):

Dear Mr Edwards

Thank you for your email to the Governor-General concerning human right issues.

Major General Jeffery appreciates the time and trouble you have taken to write to him about this matter which he understands has caused you great concern. However, I am sorry to disappoint you but responsibility for matters such as this rests with the relevant minister of the elected government of the day. It would therefore not be possible for the Governor-General to accede to your request. May I suggest if you wish to pursue tis matter further, you approach the Hon Philip Ruddock MP, Attorney-General, at Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600, or alternatively, your local member of parliament.

Yours sincerely

Philip Hart

Senior Executive Officer to the Governor-General




UK Bombings

I have one comment to make on the UK bombings - IGNORE THEM. Treat them the same way that you would treat car crashes. Just clean up the mess, move on, don't change policy. The strategy to defeat Islamofascism is a separate task. All Muslims need to be confronted with why they supposedly care so much about the "poor Palestinians" when they don't give a damn about the people of Darfur, and never gave a damn about the suffering of the Iraqis, and still don't care about the suffering of the Iranians. And I already know the answer to that. The people who only care about the Palestinians are racists and religious bigots. Someone needs to call a spade a spade.

BTW, I took a long time between posts because there was an important discussion occurring in the comments section. Hopefully that conversation will continue. I'll monitor the comments section of the last 2 posts so that I don't miss anything.


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