Australia Chokes

Oh well, the inevitable happened. Australians have betrayed not just the Iraqi people, not just our American allies, but betrayed our own soul, hard-fought for by our ancestors.

On the plus side, apparently (I haven't watched or followed Australian news for years, unless the BBC reported on it) Rudd had less pork barrelling than Howard, meaning we will hopefully begin a chain of elections where parties eliminate port-barrelling altogether.

However, that's going to be blown away if he actually signs Kyoto with the intent of actually following it, meaning we'll have a 15% hit to our economy, for no benefit to anyone at all. I'd rather see that 15% spent on a military capable of single-handedly toppling the Iranian dictatorship.

I saw a comment a couple of threads ago about my military genius. Well, here is the first public record of my military genius. Search for "main differences from Russia". This was Nov 1, 2001, when I first started asking what the holdup was in liberating Afghanistan. Seemed like a walk in the park to me. Two stalemated sides, one suddenly getting complete air supremacy added to them. How the hell was the other side expected to counter that?

Of course, the military "experts" were saying things like "But also some senior congressmen and senators are already whining that things are going fast enough. Idiots. They expect a quick and bloodless two week war. (sigh)".

And yeah, that's exactly what I was expecting too. I was wondering how it had managed to drag on for 3-4 weeks at that point. The exchange went something like this:

PE: Adding complete air supremacy to one side of a civil war will lead to the Northern Alliance being able to walk it in.

Supposed Military Expert: "the Taliban won't be overthrown overnight in some quick commando raids and airstrikes like the media likes to make the war out as. That is pure BS. If that does happen I will be first to drop to my knees and bow to you saying that you were right on the money and I was dead wrong. I hope you are right. I really do. If this war is won in the fashion then it'll be a massive military coup in military philosophy and strategy and a first in military history. My own opinion is that it will eventually involve very large amounts of ground troops and it will be a fierce and bloody war where the Taliban will fight fiercely for every inch of soil as they have successfully against every other invader in their history (and against each other)."

And this was around about Nov 4th. By Nov 10th, Mazar-e-Sharif had fallen, and on Nov 14th, Kabul fell.

So do you think the supposed military expert was "first to drop to [his] knees and bow to [me] saying that [I was] right on the money and [he] was dead wrong"? Nah, he just found some bullshit excuse to weasel his way out of his predicament, after having been shown up by a civilian. Happens with everyone I debate. I have them tied down with pure logic, and they refuse to simply admit that their entire horrible worldview is a piece of shit and that they will immediately change. Oh well, at least I do my bit.

It's amazing how even now some people think the Taliban are some super threat about to take over the country. Able to do now with a handful of troops what they were unable to do when they ruled 90% of the country. Despite the fact that the total number of friendly troops that they have killed amounts to less than a WWII river crossing, and in fact, even less than civilians killed on 9/11.

Really, I don't know how some people manage to figure out which orifice they need to put food in to stay alive. How do they manage to function at all with a "brain" like that?

Anyway, I'm happy with what I was promised - "a massive military coup in military philosophy and strategy and a first in military history". I'll see if I can find somewhere to put that on my resume. And the US military knows where to come if they want to know how to take down Iran. While they have, to date, been doing exactly what I would have done myself anyway, if that happened to be pure coincidence, then they'd better check with me to make sure they know what they're doing.





I took a look at the comments in my blog, and as usual, people like Batman were making perfectly sensible comments that no reasonable person could disagree with, so the left-wing scumbags obviously disagree with. Seems the Prof has joined the left-wing scumbags too, supporting Russia against America and showing not the slightest gratitude for his country being bailed out by America three times, and the fourth time is in progress at the moment. Guess what, Prof? Those terrorists who did 7/7? If you want to protect yourself against British terrorists killing Britons, you need to go via the Middle East, and only America can pull that one off, unfortunately. And it really is unfortunate, as I'd like to have more options for getting the job done, and at the moment I'm down to one party in one country.

Anyway, one thing that I saw was Batman being told that he'd been brainwashed by Bush. Batman is no more brainwashed by Bush than Bush was brainwashed by Batman. You may as well say that Foddy has been brainwashed by Osama Bin Laden, and that's the only reason both of them objected to the liberation of Iraq. Even when he lays out his logic, instead of challenging that logic, all these left-wing scumbags can do is come up with ridiculous ad hominem attacks.

Personally I wanted to liberate the world ever since I was a child, long before I even knew that Bush existed. I incorrectly assumed that everyone else would come to the same conclusion, based on a simple derivation of the Golden Rule. If you would want to be liberated if you were living under a dictator and denied freedom of speech, then you should do the same for others. I thought that was a deep part of Australian ethos. But I had simply projected my own ethos onto others, not knowing any better. In the same way that scumbags project the fact that they never do anything except out of self-interest onto others.

Let's look at the self-interest side of things. Does America always act out of self-interest? Well let's start off with an easy one. The money America donated to Indonesia after the tsunami. How was that in America's self-interest? America could have used that money to instead fund the Nuclear Missile Defense Shield. Why did it instead give it to Indonesia? Especially when, money being fungible, that freed up funds for the Indonesian government to fund Sharia police and buy new fighter jets from Russia.

The left-wing scum will claim that even this is in their self-interest, because they hope to "influence" Indonesia. Influence Indonesia how, I wonder, and to do what? Buy Russian warplanes? Also, where is any evidence of Indonesia being influenced to do anything at all? Even if there was some evidence of a shopping list of how they should be influenced, who makes the determination of how to be influenced? And given that multiple countries provided donations, does that mean there is a mathematical formula that Indonesia follows in order to be influenced?

Do all countries have this formula? Given that no-one gives America a dime, does that mean if I send a cheque to the Whitehouse for "random relief", along with a shopping list of what I want them to do, that, being the only "bidder", I will win and America will totally abandon all its own interests and do whatever I want?

Or - here's a wild concept - could it be that in the 21st century people really are willing to donate to complete strangers, and that some of the teachings of the bible have actually gotten through to the people and made them nice? What evidence would be required to support such a whacky theory? Aid to Indonesia after the tsunami? Billions of dollars of aid to Afghanistan? Billions to Iraq? An entire liberation of Iraq without ever having asked for the Iraqis to pay for any of it? And in fact, doing the reverse, by giving them aid money on top of the liberation costs?

What would be the evidence of America acting in its self-interest? Nuking the entire Middle East, which contributes essentially nothing at all to humanity, and getting a whole stack of free oil, for the cost of a few nukes and zero US lives lost? Yeah, that would sure count. Is there any sign of that actually being done? Mushroom clouds over Tehran? Not that I can see. Maybe that's because I'm in the Southern Hemisphere and the curvature of the earth is getting in the way or something?

What about protecting the Kosovars? Arseholes on the right in America actually objected to that, stating correctly that it was not in America's interest to go there. They were right of course, but fortunately Clinton had the decency to do so anyway, despite severely antagonizing Russia. Incidentally, the situation on the ground has changed radically, and in my opinion NATO should give the territory back to the democratically-elected Serbian government fairly soon. No point creating a new nation of racist religious bigots. Plenty of them already.

If you want to be silly, and the left-wing certainly does, you can indeed trump just about anything up as self-interest. America's self-interest in Kosovo? Easy. To get a democratically-elected government that would be friendly to America, because democracies normally are friendly to America. What's the self-interest for giving money to a beggar on the street? Easy. He'll be able to buy some new clothes with the money, get a job, then buy goods and the economy will improve and you'll get a pay rise! What's the benefit to cutting off your own arm? Easy. You'll be lighter and not have to buy so much food to stay alive!

Yes, it is in America's self-interest to protect itself. And yes, liberating Iraq does indeed protect itself. Maybe if the Iraqis had elected Sadr or worse, America might have endangered itself. But that didn't happen. America is now safer. As is the rest of the world. Why did the rest of the world not see it in their self-interest? Well. Maybe they saw it was in their self-interest to let America do all the hard work, while they stayed at home and had a jolly good time with the money they saved? That's where I see the selfishness. The arsehole countries that failed to protect not just America, but also the Iraqi people. And tomorrow, Australia becomes one of those arsehole countries.

On the programming front, I have done something totally radical. I have enabled applications to run in 31-bit mode on a platform that was never designed to do that, and some said couldn't be done for a host of reasons (which I countered before doing it, but they refused to accept my counterarguments, a bit like the left-wing scum here actually). It took me 2 days, on unfamiliar code with an unfamiliar compiler, to find the right place to put about 10 lines of code to make it happen. Someone said that I had put a round peg into a square hole by using a sledgehammer. :-) The new system is called S/380, and while the virtual machine exists (that's what I did), the operating system is being extended now by someone else so that the apps (me again) can access that new memory (gone from 16 MB to 2 GB) in a more controlled manner. And then GCCMVS, which requires about 20 meg of memory (24 bits can only address 16 meg, even if there was no operating system), should hopefully self-compile. It should only be a couple of days for that to happen. I think this is more productive use of my time, to make the world a better place, than trying to get immoral brick walls like Foddy to support human freedom. This sort of programming work is what I used to do before the Iraq war too. It was only when I saw 50% of Australia objecting to human freedom that I realised my skills were better served sorting out human insanity. But that was sorted out a long time ago, 2004-09-11 to be precise, and the insane humans simply aren't interested in sorting the world out. So, the problem I am solving at the moment is the ability for people to write portable C programs, and to be able to write them on the MVS environment, and indeed, for others to be able to test that their programs really are portable, by running them on MVS, even if they are too large to fit within 16 MB.





When the Russians look at a map of the world, they look at how much territory they used to control, and seek to regain that territory. They are nationalists and racist. When the Chinese look at a map of the world, they see ethnic Chinese and seek to put them under their control, in Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. They don't actually give a damn whether the people in those places have good governance or human rights etc.

When the Japanese conquered Asia, all they saw was white people in "Asian lands" and sought to exterminate the presence and replace it with Asian, specifically Japanese, rulers. Didn't matter that it was a cruel ruler. So long as it was Japanese. They were racist.

So too with the rest of the empires - Persian etc. People pine for the good old days when their race ruled over others. And of course we had the Germans with "Deutschland uber alles" (Germany over all). The Arabs aren't the least bit upset by the glorious Arab conquests of the past.

And when Muslims look at a map of the world, they see all the ones listed as "Islamic states" and think that that's a great achievement. They don't look at GDP, or scientific discoveries, or foreign aid, or anything at all. Just whether it is an Islamic state or not. They are religious bigots.

When I look at a map of the world, I primarily go to www.freedomhouse.org (or see the link on the left of my blog). That's what I see. The glorious spread of freedom across the globe. Afghanistan switching from unfree to free in the blink of an eye, thanks to a handful of well-placed JDAMs.

When racists like Foddy look at the world, all they see is skin colour. They see a country, see the skin colour of the people in those countries, and decide that so long as the ruler of that country is of that same skin colour, they are happy. Doesn't matter that people in that country are having their tongues cut out. Doesn't matter if the Germans are gassing Jews. So long as the skin colour matches, that's fine by them.

This is the main reason they object to the Iraq war. They see white people in "brown lands" and their colour coordination chucks a hissy fit. They aren't inspired by watching the colours change at freedhouse. They are completely unmoved by it. That's not the colour scheme they are looking for. What they're looking for is racial purity.

They don't care whether the entire African continent is one huge cesspit. So long as they don't have to live there themselves, and so long as the rulers are all black, they're as happy as Larry. Who needs good governance? Only whatever country Foddy is living in at the moment, apparently. Everyone else be damned. He never considers what it must feel like to be one of those poor people living under a cruel dictator. Because he's a sociopaths, and sociopaths do not think like that. Human beings having their tongues cut out is a bit like stomping on ants. In this case it's one ant stomping on another ant. Why the hell would Foddy care about what ants do to each other anyway? After all, they're just, well, ants! A bit like Rick complaining that the TV producers treat the kids like, well, kids.

Long, long ago I showed the faithfreedom website to a co-worker and said that I was trying to make this map green, and he thought I was some sort of beast for advocating war just so that I could tick off a box on a map. And I thought he was a beast for not doing exactly that. I mean, how many people talk about making a contribution to society? What better contribution can you make to society than tick off a box on that map? When that box represents millions of humans now with freedom, what bigger contribution could anyone make? It looks like my co-worker is about to get his worldview implemented in Australia in less than one week from now. More's the pity.

What a horrible selfish world he's going to usher in. Where we only care about non-whites to the extent that we make sure there's no white people in any chain of their government. You call that "caring"? I call it what it is - racism. Foddy, you are a racist. Buh, you are a racist. My old co-worker? Another racist. I don't know why these racists bother going to church to pretend that they're contributing to society, making the world a better place. They're not. They're responsible for aiding and abetting the world's worst criminals. And they are not pleasing God by going to church. Every minute spent in church that could have instead been used to actually make a real contribution is actually pissing God off. Really pissed off. So pissed off that he's not going to revive them after they die.

BTW, I have issues with freedomhouse. They shouldn't be classifying a racist Marxist defacto one-party state like South Africa as "free", and nor should they hold back Iraq with 300+ political parties and 2 elections and a referendum not very long ago as "unfree". They're pricks for doing that. But it's still useful as a starting point. Oh, they classify Russia as "unfree" too, which is crap. The Russian people are arseholes, but they are free. That's how I know they are arseholes. I can talk directly to them. So much for my belief that they would be our strongest allies if they were ever released from communism. Oh well. I also never expected half of Australia to be racist sociopaths either. Especially not ones who attended church and presumably had a desire to be on good terms with God.

P.S. Yes, I know I said I was going to blog more. But I've recently installed MVS 3.8j on my PC and have been changing GCCMVS like crazy. I'm even planning on fundamentally changing the S/370 architecture to make it do things it was never meant to do, ie run 31-bit programs on a 24-bit operating system so that GCCMVS can compile itself completely on this platform and obviously any other large programs too.




Rudd the Choker

Rudd you slimy little prick. When the going got tough, you choked. Just like your Labor predecessor who abandoned millions of South Vietnamese to communist slavery, you were about to abandon millions of Iraqi allies to a similar or worse fate. The verdict is finally in. Even the left-wing have capitulated. From the BBC:

"Everybody agrees that things are much better."

So much for a civil war, eh Rudd? You prick.

So much for the sky falling, eh Rudd? You prick.

Man, it's times like this you just want to say "nyuk, nyuk, nyuk". Just in time for the election too. I hope you rue the day you decided the welfare of Iraqis didn't matter a damn to Australia. You prick.

If you want to go and make yourself useful, go and divert your attention to South Africa now. Instead of waxing lyrical about how great it was under Saddam, you can wax lyrical about how much more competent the white South Africans were compared to the Marxist terrorists who have taken their place. You prick.

Maybe Australia isn't going to go down in history as the country that choked in Iraq after all. No thanks to you, you prick.

The Coalition (right-wing, conservatives, good guys) are trailing 46 to 54 at the moment (data about 1-2 weeks old), meaning we need to find 4% of Australians to realise that Rudd, the prick they currently support, is in fact a prick who was about to abandon allies, and instead vote for someone who swore they would stand by their allies till Hell freezed over. It's within striking distance.

The stupid voters are so stupid they aren't willing to believe the straightforward logic that war is a technical task you give to professionals - they want to hear that from the left-wing media. And now the left is starting to crack. Will it be a done deal by 24th November 2007? I don't know. But thanks BBC for writing a halfway decent article. And Rudd? You're a prick. And you're also stupid for not realising that war is a technical task that happens above your paygrade and intellectual capability. And you're a prick.

Australia - November 24th is your day. You can follow in the spirit of the Lighthorse who charged Beersheba, or you can follow Rudd into the depths of depravity. The choice is stark. Go for it Australia. Let the spirit of the ANZACs course through your body.

Oh, another thing to note from the article is this:

"One by one, men and women stood up and screamed abuse at the (Al Sadr) militia, blaming it for killing and torturing their loved ones."

Can someone please tell me - how did a fool like Chimpy McHalliburton Bush manage to arrange for the Iraqi people to get a first-hand taste of Islamofascism without actually having them elected to power and set up a new dictatorship like in Gaza? How the hell did he pull that one off? Maybe now those US soldiers who were dismayed that they were forced to let Sadr go free will forgive Bush?

It WORKED folks. It FUCKING WORKED. We've done the impossible and set up an Arab Muslim democracy in the heart of the Middle East. Whatever we do in the rest of the countries, we now know that we're not trying to do something impossible, and it's just a matter of observing how the Iraqis manage it and to get the other countries to emulate that.

Hey, maybe the South Africans will ask the Iraqis for advice? Instead of copying Saddam they can copy Maliki. What a novel concept!

Maybe I should watch some Australian news to see if this stuff has made it onto our news?

Read and weep, Rudd. Read and weep. You prick.




Victory in Iraq

Wow, even the US military is acknowledging what I've said for a long time. We've won.

There's a lot of distrust in the government for the Sunnis -- one could almost use the word "paranoia" about the Sunnis -- and a possible return of the Ba'athists. It's kind of hard to believe when you look at the numbers and when you look at the size of the Shi'a community and the fact that, you know, they're positioned where they are and they have the population that they do and there's as many of them as there are in the security forces. It's like -- the best description I've heard of it is, the Sunnis recognize that they've lost, and they're coming to the table.

The Shi'a don't recognize yet that they've won. I think General Odierno said that, and I think he's right.

The other analogy you can use is the Shi'a are like an enormous mouse that's, you know, very, very afraid of a tiny lion, but in actuality, they don't really have anything to fear in terms of losing the government to the Sunnis. It's -- there's no way the coalition would let that happen, and there's no way the Sunnis have the numbers to make that happen, even if they wanted to. And the ones that I've talked to, you can tell that -- I don't think that's in any of the cards from the Sunni people that I've talked to. I think most of them genuinely recognize that there's no going back and that, you know, we have to make some kind of political accommodation and agreement with the Shi'a community.

But the Shi'a community is scared and we have to hand hold them through this, and it's painful and it's taking a lot of time. But ultimately, I do think we will be successful.

Note especially the way he describes it. In much the same way that I described it. He says "it's kind of hard to believe", which is exactly right. You can show people the military situation, but they refuse to see their hand in front of their face. So long as their TV keeps blaring "quagmire" or showing military irrelevant car bombs, they will ignore their hand in front of their face. Is that really a hand? Are those really fingers? Is my hand really that colour? Are you sure? I don't remember seeing that freckle before! Nah, that's not my hand. It's probably someone else's foot. You're lying to me. I know the truth. Bush did 9/11 and put someone else's foot in front of my face. Yes, Bush did it. Bush Bush Bush!





I checked why I had so many comments in the second-last post, and found that we now have some decent commenters - Batman and Wolfen - great to see you guys! I also noticed that Foddy had decided that *I* was the racist. In particular, he seems to think that I am claiming that all Japanese are superior to all blacks. What a joke.

Of course we all know that it is Foddy that is the racist. He thinks that so long as there is a black person in charge of African countries, that's all that matters. The citizens of those countries don't need human rights or anything silly like that. Just so long as the skin colour of their dictator is the right shade of black, everything is hunky dory.

He is also racist in that he judges Japanese not by what they are currently doing (which is helping people, including blacks), but instead by what other Japanese have done in the past. This is the height of racism - judging people by the colour of their skin and transferring blame from guilty people to the innocent based on that common skin colour. It really is sick. But we knew that already.

Quite frankly, I'd rather be a colony of some other country with a black administrator such as Condaleeza Rice (although I have a problem with her apparent support of racial discrimination in favour of blacks), Ayaan Hirsi Ali (although I'd need to check these claims of her being a "feminist" (ie anti-male sexist)) or John Sentamu (I don't know anything wrong with him), rather than have a democratically-elected arsehole like Mugabe, or Chavez. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Australia is beyond self-governance for electing an arsehole like Rudd, but I'd at least weigh up the pros and cons. Rudd may not give a damn about foreigners, but he will still protect the human rights of Australians (unless you count the failure to protect against foreign attack), and won't even do significant damage to the economy.

Of course Foddy doesn't see his own racism, and he also doesn't give a damn about the fact that blacks never get pulled up for their racism. Some time ago I saw article on the BBC which led me to an African blog which says "I will almost always support a team that is fully or majority black against a team that is not. Does that make me racist?". The comments section led me to another article about why humans are racist.

The posts basically speak for themselves. The problems we have in this world are largely caused by racist non-whites, not racist whites as the media in both white and non-white countries would have you believe. I'd like to emphasize that this racism from non-whites is a purely NATURAL phenomenon. What is UNNATURAL is what has occurred in white countries, which is the government has gone to enormous efforts to make whites non-racist. ie getting whites to adopt an ideology of being anti-racist instead of pro-white. I've yet to meet a genuinely racist white person. Unless you start counting the 50% of white Australians/Americans/British who have stepped over the edge and decided that the best way to prove that they don't discriminate against non-whites is to start discriminating against whites, and actually becoming self-loathing whites, and expect the rest of us whites to go along with being second-class citizens.

Meanwhile, this focus on whites, which was certainly useful some decades ago, has now meant that whites are flogging a dead horse by trying to blame whites for everything and trying to fix whites, when the enormous problem of racism emanating from non-whites (such as our African friend above) has been covered up and not addressed. This is ultimately destructive for everyone, as this normally eventuates in hostile attacks from blacks, which will either land them in jail, or deny them opportunities in the wider world. I don't think Dale Carnegie would have suggested that approach. The whole concept is similar to when I see Christians initiating hostility when according to THEIR OWN RELIGION they're meant to be turning the other cheek even if the OTHER guy initiates hostility. One of the more absurd examples of this was when I saw George Speight (a coup leader in Fiji) talk about how he was going to kill the hostages, while he was on his way to friggin' church!!! Something needs to be added to the front of the bible saying "You - yes, YOU - before you pretend to be a follower of this book, you're actually meant to understand the basics of it and if you are committing violence against some innocent (whether they are Indians, Jews or any other group I can't predict you're going to start discriminating against) you are DEFINITELY not part of this religion, please stop giving it a bad name!".

Anyway, my ideology, documented in message 666, makes me an anti-racist. The fact that I include racist non-whites in the list of people I am against, instead of just the few racist whites who remain (mostly hidden), just gets his goat, because it's not the "done thing". How dare anyone expose racist blacks and Arabs (and anti-white whites for that matter) for the complete scum they are! Anti-white whites like Foddy are not race traitors. They are traitors to humanity, by actively trying to make the world a worse place instead of helping fix it. All the while thinking he is a brave hero helping the poor discriminated blacks and telling them to be angry at their white oppressors, and essentially ensuring that they wind up in jail. Nice going, Foddy. Any decent person would explain to them how the likes of Taiwan managed to pull themselves up - and it wasn't by sitting on their arses blaming whites for everything wrong in their lives.

I might be posting a bit more frequently now. I've got a backlog of things to comment on and need to flesh them out. So hopefully another post in a couple of days.




Iraq vs South Africa

The official figures from Iraq and South Africa are apparently 25 a day vs 52 a day respectively, with South Africa having twice the population thus being a dead heat rate-wise.

So when are we going to hear cries of "never again" to replacing white minority rule with a one-party Marxist state, rather than the current mantra which is "never again" to replacing a Saddam Hussein minority rule with a multiparty democracy?

And regardless, Iraq's previous death toll was apparently in the order of 100/day. Also, it's about time someone noted "The battle for Iraq always involved a grim calculus: would liberation save more people than it killed?". Actually, the calculus is more than that. It's not just getting a lower death toll, it's about freedom for the survivors.

Why did anyone bother fighting the Nazis anyway? Why not just surrender and avoid war? Does freedom have any value at all? I wish the anti-freedom people in the West would spend a year or so living in North Korea so that they would hopefully come back with a changed opinion about freedom. It's too late for them to experience getting their tongue cut out by Saddam, but I'm sure Kim Jong Il could come up with something along those lines? Maybe the anti-freedom females could be one of the dancers at Kim Jong Il's drunken parties? Taking "catch and kiss" to a whole 'nuther level.


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