On a Possible “Bush v. Clinton” Presidential Election

I’m curious to see what will happen if–and heaven forbid it–we end up with another Bush/Clinton presidential election (vis a vis, Jeb and Hillary). I’m quite confident that–if not a majority–a sizable segment of the population does not want this, and this demographic is growing & making its presence felt more and more, as knowledge spreads and people continue to wake up to what’s going on (such as, the corruption & takeover of our governmental system by int’l banksters, corporate elite, globalist forces, etc.) If we really were to find ourselves looking at another election between these 2 names, it would be easier than ever for us to get the attention of those who haven’t quite woken up yet–since at that point many will probably have some kind of vague sense that something isn’t right here. So at least we would get the chance of having more people than ever receptive to our message, and an explanation of why we find our choices limited to one of those same 2 familiar names, can easily become an explanation of the whole bankster war machine & fiat money scam…you could pretty much go as far down the rabbit hole as circumstances allow for (gotta remember that certain people can only take so many blows to their worldview in one sitting, before they begin to disregard everything you say; can’t always force-feed them the red pill!), but it’d be a helpful doorway down that path, without it having to feel like you’re springing all this shit on them out of the blue.


Attacking The Left Where They Are Vulnerable

A note on the psychology of modern liberalism vs. that of libertarianism–and a suggestion regarding “winning the argument” moving forward…

I’ve found that for many on the left, their thinking is heavily funneled through their feelings, leading to decisions & beliefs that are overly based on emotion. This often presents a stumbling block to the libertarian mindset, which (while capable of being idealistic about certain things) has a much harder time, say, simply dismissing manifest realities for the sake of other beliefs one holds dear.

For example, I have no qualms with holding up the ideal of the non-aggression principle (NAP), which declares the initiation of force (unsolicited aggression against person or property) to be morally unjust. So this makes a morally normative claim on how the world ought to be (how people ought to behave), rather than how it is. Idealistic? Perhaps, but the NAP is based specifically on the principle of self-ownership, which the libertarian interprets not as a principle/ideal about how the world ought to be, but a fact about how the world is.

My suggestion is that we apply such brute principles to emotionally-driven arguments that will be coming from the left (if not the right) during the upcoming election season. When politicians decry spending cuts & entitlement reform by appealing to the plight of their beneficiaries, we might counter by appealing to the plight of our posterity whom we’re saddling with debts they cannot repay (and shouldn’t have to).

So far as pro-liberty candidates find themselves having to defend their positions on cutting spending, contracting the size of gov’t, etc.–they should go on offense. Aggressively challenge more defecit spending on moral grounds, and paint the opponent as the proponents of a gross moral hazard (which they are). Say, “It is unjustifiable to continue doing this.” Ask, “Have you NO CONCERN AT ALL with transferring our debts to our innocent children?”

Lay the responsibility at their feet, noting what it reveals about their moral character.

“I question your moral compass, senator, if you think it’s ethical for us to take on spending with no real intention (or hope) of repaying what we’ve borrowed, knowing full well that these debts will be transferred to our own flesh-and-blood, for them to deal with after we’re gone.”

Obama admin.’s unsuccessful attempts to instigate war with Syria

Whaddya know — new report from Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh, affirming what some of us knew all along: Obama & Kerry blatantly lied to the American public, and the world, about the “undeniable” intelligence they supposedly had showing Assad’s regime was responsible for the chemical attacks in Syria.

Of course it was all simply a pretense for U.S. intervention in order to advance the West’s geopolitical & economic interests in the region–it had nothing to do with youtube videos of children suffering from sarin gas. It had everything to do with pipelines that would run through Syria on their way to Europe, where they’ll supply much of that continent’s oil & natural gas & thus represent a large piece the global energy picture for the 21st century. Several countries are maneuvering themselves for dominance of the energy market that runs through Syria. Our oil/gas-exporting allies in the area (who help prop up the petrodollar) are Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey…all desperately want Assad gone. Assad entered agreements w/ Russia and Iran in 2009 re: a massive underground gas pipeline planned to run through Iran, Iraq, Syria, then on to Europe…undermining Qatar’s strategic energy power & cutting Turkey (a NATO member) out of the pipeline flow–all of which hurts Western energy interests & ultimately threatens the petrodollar system (which ensures the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency).

So there’s a million reasons why they wanted to get involved, none of which involve sob-stories about suffering children or the inhumane use of chemical weapons… that was simply a red herring–the sort of smoke screen gov’t must employ when it needs to garner public support for military action. It’s necessary in order to get the public riled up enough to be willing to support going to war. It failed to work this time, though not because they didn’t try their damndest.

Saudi Arabia literally offered to foot the entire bill for a U.S. invasion of Syria…and this administration would have you believe they offered this because, hey, they too were outraged about some fuckin youtube videos! It’s amazing how stupid they think you really are.


Connecting the dots…

A friend recently asked me whether my opinions regarding US bomb strikes in Syria have (or would) change in light of speculation that Assad was responsible for the sarin gas attacks that occurred in Damascus on August 21. My opinions on Syria have in no way changed, as I continue to follow it closely and keep up with the latest news/info every day. There’s so much to say on this issue that one struggles to know where even to begin. If I just open the floodgates and start spilling my guts about everything I believe, I’ll no doubt sound like a crackpot, jumping to all number of irrational conclusions.

Okay, for one: I still adamantly oppose the U.S. getting involved, regardless of who used the chemical weapons. The reason for this is that the rebel forces are now dominated by radical extremists. If Assad is overthrown, these are who will assume his spot…al-Qaeda linked Islamists. The western-friendly secular & democratic factions have no hope of taking power. For example: we funded (provided arms to) the rebels in Libya, as they fought to overthrow their dictator Gaddafi in 2011. The Muslim brotherhood has now taken power in Libya. And Iraq is also now dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, where we overthrew the dictator Saddam Husseinn, and now we’re left with something worse. In Egypt, after they managed to overthrow their authoritarian leader Hosni Mubarak in 2011, we backed and supported their new Muslim brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi. Morsi was a pretty textbook example of what you get from the Muslim Brotherhood in terms of a political leader: it’s a non-tolerant Islamist state that is a total human rights disaster (for women, for gays, for non-Muslims). Morsi proceeded to pass new constitutional amendments that granted him unlimited power and made it impossible for any court to overturn any of his decrees–he had total control over all executive, legislative, and judicial powers, which he used to imprison his enemies and pardon Muslim terrorists in prison, and no person or governmental body had authority to challenge or revoke his decisions. He became an even more authoritative dictator than the one he replaced, Hosni Mubarak, who–just like Assad–was a cruel ruler in his own right but at least he maintained a secular state and allowed people of different religions to practice their faith freely by keeping the Muslim Brotherhood in check. Egypt has one of the largest secular populations in the middle east, and they were furious over Morsi’s power grab and religious fundamentalism. One year after Morsi assumed power, anti-Morsi protestors (mainly liberals, leftists, secularists, and Christians) took to the streets in what was likely the largest public protest in history. Literally millions of Egyptians took to the street demanding Morsi’s resignation, for several days, refusing to leave.

Protests against Muslim brotherhood in Egypt

Protests against Muslim brotherhood in Egypt

What were we, the U.S., doing during this time? Backing and supporting Morsi! AGAIN and again, we are backing the Muslim Brotherhood–it’s insane! The protesters in the street had signs that literally said: “America, WAKE UP. Obama is backing a fascist regime in Egypt.” I’m not kidding:

US gov't unabashedly supporting Morsi's fascist Muslim brotherhood regime

US gov’t unabashedly supporting Morsi’s fascist Muslim brotherhood regime

Our goal seems to be to destabilize the entire region, and replace dictators (who are power-driven and thus can be controlled through money/bribes) with the Muslim brotherhood (which is ideologically-driven and cannot be controlled–and they’re every bit as cruel).

We know the Syrian rebel forces are predominantly radical jihadis, because they’re largely from other countries who have traveled to Syria and seizing it as an attempt to establish an Islamic state and advance their God-given call to bring about a global caliphate (whole world under Muslim rule, i.e. sharia law–by any means necessary, including manipulation and deception, as is set forth in their doctrine of “taqiyya”). So this is no longer a true “civil war”, because it is not a conflict between warring factions of the same state. The rebel opposition has fighters from several different middle eastern countries, and these fighters aren’t travelling to Syria and fighting/dying to help them establish a free democratic state. No, they’re there to further the power and control of the Muslim Brotherhood. Russia and China both understand this, and unlike us, they basically share borders with the middle east–and they’re uneasy with having to deal with the rising power of the Muslim Brotherhood, one of many reasons they back Assad.

(It’s also another reason why this is not a true civil war–it’s really already a proxy war being fought out by various world powers, e.g. Russia, China, the U.S., Iran, etc….we (the US) are arming and funding the opposition in forces in Syria already–we’ve already gotten involved, we’ve already taken a side, even without missile strikes or direct U.S. military involvement. Similarly, Russia and Iran have long been arming/backing Assad’s regime (China’s being more tight-lipped but they openly side with Russia on this). Hezbollah is a Shiite militant group (strongest military force in Lebanon) that’s closely allied with Assad and providing huge support. Back on the opposition side, apart from us backing them, and factions from various middle eastern countries whose interests align with the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are also big backers of the rebel forces. So you’ve got all these players involved, from all over, this thing is already a psuedo-world war because all these world powers are fighting indirectly through their proxies in the region. So when people say “we shouldn’t get involved in another country’s civil war,” it’s too late for that. The reason we shouldn’t get involved is because of how quickly it could escalate given all the interests involved. This raises the question of, what exactly ARE our interests in the region? Why are we backing the rebel forces? I’m getting there, and though there may be multiple answers to this question, I can tell you with full confidence that it has nothing to do righteous indignation over the inhumane use of chemical weapons. That’s just a smokescreen. We gave zero fucks about the genocide in Rwanda in the mid-90s, which was far more heinous than this Sarin gas episode; difference is we had no personal interests to pursue in Rwanda)

We also know the rebel forces are dominated by Western-hating radicals because they are torturing and killing Christians, burning and vandalizing churches, more and more…brutalizing men, women, and children…and western Media (not to mention Obama and most US politicians) are silent on the issue. I’m serious, this is a big problem going on that in the US is unreported.

Now why are we seeming to back the Muslim brotherhood at every turn, knowing that time and again this has proven to only lead to further destabilization and conflict in the region?

Unintimidating, Incompetent, and Frankly Embarrassing

We’ve already broadcasted to Assad (and the rest of the world) the sort of targets we aim to strike…giving them days/weeks to move assets, prepare, and generally do everything in their power to mitigate the effectiveness of any missile strikes we might be sending their way. They know precisely what’s coming, the full who, what, when, where, and how of this U.S. foreign policy misadventure. We’ve made it perfectly clear to them: no boots on the ground, no regime change, just some Tomahawk missiles aimed at “strategic” locations. How soon you forget, dear Middle Eastern friends, we Americans know a thing or two about “strategery”.

You see, citizens of the world, we’re so magical and awesome that we can remove Assad’s access to chemical weapons that he probably never used in the first place, and we can do this with bombs, WITHOUT risking exposing the toxic nerve agents to any innocent human beings who happen to be in the area, and we can do this despite forecasting these intentions well in advance–we do not fear that the weapons/assets we aim to destroy will be moved to secure locations while we’re busy trying to get the vast majority of US citizens that oppose this to realize how silly they’re being and acknowledge the flawless logic of our plan.

We realize you simple folk may struggle to grasp the wisdom behind our well-calculated strategies, and that’s fine, we forgive you for that. You’re not superheroes, after all, you’re only human. Thinking’s hard, it’s not for everybody. How fortunate you are to live in times such as these, where leaders have such impeccable judgment that you can blindly trust.

Guess what Barry? Guess what John? You sacrificed that credibility & assumption of trust long ago. Though it’s slightly amusing to watch your floundering attempts to portray yourself as formidable authorities of a world superpower, to be respected and feared…..lol I’m sorry, and not to pile on, but I’ve got to ask, and I’m serious: who is not thoroughly amazed at what an unbelievable fucking pussy Obama is? He’s just not a leader, it’s not in his make-up. He’s in over his head, has been from day one. THIS is true incompetence people, these guys can’t even warmonger efficiently! Don’t misinterpret me, I’m as opposed to Syrian intervention as anybody, but when the president and secretary of state are being upstaged and outreasoned on the int’l diplomatic stage by the likes of VLADOMIR PUTIN and BASHAR ASSAD, I mean sweet Jesus…how the mighty have fallen.

Today, Kerry seriously referred to the scope of the attacks he has in mind as being “unbelievably small.” UNBELIEVABLY small! As in, you won’t even ‘believe’ how small they are! As in–why are we even doing this in the first place?


Administration’s Case For War Simply Not Compelling

This administration is pushing hard to win over US public opinion re: engaging Syria. It’s beginning to look like a foregone conclusion at this point, however this whole thing reeks of bullshit; you know when they bring the full-court press like this, trying to shape the narrative that “we know” what happened & therefore it’s our moral duty to thrust ourselves into this mess…it’s time to be suspicious. 

Also, this shouldn’t turn on whether Assad or the opposition is responsible for the Sarin gas–Syria’s been a bloodbath for two and a half years now, death toll over 100k….yet at no point during that time when Assad was slaughtering tens of thousands of his own people, did Obama or Kerry feel a “moral imperative” to get involved. This forced the pro-democracy opposition groups to ally themselves with Islamist terrorist groups (who are seizing the opportunity to overthrow Assad only to establish sharia law). 

Where was your compassion then, back when your willingness to enter the conflict might’ve led to something other than further chaotic destabilization of a region that we’ve already fucked up enough? Back when joining the fight wouldn’t entail supporting the same terrorists we’ve been battling for the past decade?? This regime is supported by Russia, China, and Iran, all of whom have warned us to mind our own business. Why aggravate that trifecta over an arbitrary “red line” you stupidly committed yourself to? WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR PLAN?