The "Deaf-Mute Blindmen" of The Western Democracies Support The Muslim Brotherhood in Their Egyptian Revolution

The so-called "democratic" fools who dominate what used to be the West have now grown so addled that they will support literally anything calling itself a "democracy movement", even if it is obviously their deadly enemy aiming to replace their ally -- in this particular case Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak -- with jihad and sharia.

Out with dictatorship, in with human rights and democracy -- this is the so-called "thinking" of the neocons, who support the overthrow of the National Democratic Party.


Similarly, they supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, shoving it down the throats of George W. Bush and Benjamin Netanyahu. Now they are hysterical because the lack of a strong Sunni presence in Baghdad (i.e., the Ba’athists) has enabled the rise of Iran, thereby quite predictably endangering the neocons’ beloved “Little Satan”.


It is likely that Obama’s personal motivation for supporting the overthrow of Mubarak is to some extent his own sympathy for the overt Marxism-Leninism of many of the American groups supporting the Egyptian uprising, as well as his personal sympathy for the Marxist-Leninist nature of some of the Egyptian protesters themselves.

Obama is clearly sympathetic to Arab jihadists (if not Persian or white ones) as well as to Marxists, being a black nationalist who was reared a Muslim, and the likelihood of his having great personal sympathy for the Egyptian mobs’ goals cannot be overestimated.

In addition, Obama’s own attachment to post-colonialism and Third Worldism leads him and his entourage to champion the most anti-American forces around the world as the true voices of the disenfranchised, toiling Third World masses. As of now, they are merely objects on which Western forces act; Obama and his fellow post-American Leftists believe they can teach the Arabs to be independent of this baneful imperialism.

American President Barack Hussein Obama's administration now supports "orderly transition" in Egypt -- which means the destruction of America's second-highest-funded ally (after Israel), and in essence a continuation of the Carter Administration's support for the Islamic Revolution in Iran. (Quite naturally, the mullahs now support the "democracy" protests.)

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has adopted the same policy. Meanwhile, Brit PM David Cameron is using the Egypt protests as evidence that “Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible”.

In reality, the West could not have emerged with her fleeting victory against Marxism-Leninism had it not been for the many military dictatorships supported by the United States in Latin America in the 1970's and 1980's as part of her containment regime. Of course, all this is ancient history; what matters now is sponsoring as many Islamic revolutions and secessions as possible, though of course Christian secession from a Communist or Islamic state -- as with Katanga or East Timor -- is simply insufferable.

It goes without saying that a Muslim Brotherhood success in Egypt will lead to jihadist uprisings in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, where the Muslim Brotherhood are popular, and that it will weaken American allies in Iraq.

Dr. Revilo P. Oliver on Liberalism and the Plight of Western Man

There has been something wrong with the West since before all the Pakis, Jews, Leftists, wogs, feminists, poofs, and other moral degenerates appeared.

According to the late Dr. Revilo Pendleton Oliver:

“LIBERALISM” IS A succedaneous religion that was devised late in the Eighteenth Century and it originally included a vague deism. Like the Christianity from which it sprang, it split into various sects and heresies, such as Jacobinism, Fourierism, Owenism, Fabian Socialism, Marxism, and the like. The doctrine of the “Liberal” cults is essentially Christianity divested of its belief in supernatural beings, but retaining its social superstitions, which were originally derived from, and necessarily depend on, the supposed wishes of a god. This “Liberalism,” the residue of Christianity, is, despite the fervor with which its votaries hold their faith, merely a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied.

The dependence of the “Liberal” cults on a blind and irrational faith was long obscured or concealed by their professed esteem for objective science, which they used as a polemic weapon against orthodox Christianity, much as the Protestants took up the Copernican restoration of heliocentric astronomy as a weapon against the Catholics, who had imprudently decided that the earth could be stopped from revolving about the sun in defiance of Holy Writ by burning intelligent men at the stake or torturing them until they recanted. Pious Protestants would naturally have preferred a cozy little earth, such as their god described in their holy book, but they saw the advantage of appealing to our racial respect for observed reality to enlist support, while simultaneously stigmatizing their rivals as ignorant obscurantists and ridiculous ranters.

The Jew has done his bit to damage to the West, too, as noted to great effect by Dr. Kevin MacDonald of the American Third Position Party.   Dr. Oliver wrote of the plight of Western man at the hands of the Jew:

It is a grim and terrible fact that many members of our own race have had their minds so deformed by centuries of cunning Jewish propaganda that they have been conditioned, as effectively as well-trained dogs, to snarl and bite when their Jewish masters utter certain key-words, such as “fascist”, “racist”, and the like, which take the place of the “sic ‘em” to which dogs respond.   They are, furthermore, so emotionally addicted to narcotic fantasies that many of them are both unwilling and unable to endure the distress of looking at the real world about them and thinking rationally about it.  They understandably prefer to close tightly the eyes of looking at the real world about them and live in the dream-world of pleasurable fairy tales, such as they heard in the childhood to which they subconsciously long to regress.  As Kipling nearly characterized them, “If they desire a thing, they declare it is true.  If they desire it not, though it were death itself, they cry aloud ‘It has never been!’”

It is a tragic and potentially disastrous fact that any candid and reasonably comprehensive analysis of our present plight not only exposes its author to surreptitious reprisals or open reprisals, but also alienates many members of our befuddled and perhaps doomed race, making them snarl and want to bite the man who would make them face an unpleasant reality. Many more are so timorous that even a hint of disrespect for Jews sends them running for cover, like frightened cats, lest the Jews punish them for having listened to impious words. 

Liberalism, followed by the politically correct philo-Semitic paralysis, followed by the death of the West.

Swiss People's Party to Rescue Swiss Citizens from Criminal Aliens and "No Borders" Caucasophobes

Previously, The Wandering White has covered the heroic Swiss minaret ban, initiated by the Swiss People's Party (SVP), while Great Britain caves to Islamic law and the United States elect an unrepentant Mohammedan as their President, honour Ramadan (but not Christmas), and plan to build a mega-mosque at the site of the World Trade Center (the last in the name of "freedom of religion"). 

Now the SVP is standing up for Swiss rights again.   From Time Magazine on 14th August, 2010:

Last week, a pamphlet arrived through the mailbox of every Swiss household. It blamed the country's immigrant population for a host of societal problems, including welfare abuse, a rising crime rate and an inability to integrate into Swiss culture. The pamphlet contained a survey asking the recipients what measures should be taken to rid Switzerland of immigrants - both legal and illegal - who break the law.


Even in a country known for its level-headedness and neutrality, immigration remains a divisive topic in Switzerland. Last week's brochure was distributed by the populist Swiss People's Party (SVP) ahead of a Nov. 28 nationwide initiative on whether foreigners who commit a crime in Switzerland should be deported after serving their prison sentences.

The vote represents the culmination of a campaign launched by the party in 2007 known as the "black sheep campaign" after SVP posters that showed three white sheep kicking a black sheep out of Switzerland. The poster sparked widespread accusations of racism at the time, but the SVP insisted it accurately conveyed its message: that foreigners who abuse Swiss hospitality should be thrown out.


Not surprisingly, the most recent pamphlet - and the upcoming vote - have reopened the immigration controversy. "[The SVP] are discriminatory and irresponsible," says Balthasar Glaettli, director of Solidarity without Borders (SOSF), a Swiss NGO that protects foreigners' rights.



Not so, says the SVP. The party says that a disproportionate number of criminals in Swiss prisons are foreigners and that "the Swiss have the right to feel safe in our own country." According to figures provided by the Justice Department, three out of four prisoners are foreign. However, some legal experts dispute the SVP's interpretation of that figure, arguing that in Switzerland foreigners are seen as "flight risks" and are therefore more likely to be sent to prison than locals.


The upcoming vote comes exactly a year after the approval of another SVP initiative that banned the construction of minarets. After collecting over 200,000 signatures - 100,000 are required to launch a vote on a constitutional amendment - the SVP presented the immigration proposal to the parliament. The legislators have the right to nullify public initiatives if they are deemed incompatible with international or Swiss law.


But despite concerns that the SVP measure violates a law stating that people can't be deported to countries where they might face persecution, the Swiss parliament allowed the proposal to be brought to a public vote because it had twice the required number of signatures, showing wide popular support. But the legislature also created its own proposal, which will be voted on along with the SVP version. That version restricts deportation to immigrants who commit only the most serious crimes, such as murder, rape and armed robbery. It stresses, however, that expulsions can't violate national or international law.


The SVP claims that the government's counter-proposal is too lenient because it opens up the possibility of appeals against deportation. The SVP's own initiative calls for automatic expulsion of all criminals without the right of appeal, including those convicted of "lighter" infractions not covered under the government proposal, such as drug dealing, burglary and abuse of social and welfare benefits. "Switzerland can't become the land of milk and honey for foreign criminals," SVP legislator Walter Wobmann argued during the parliamentary debate over the initiative.


Opponents of the measure say that both the SVP initiative and the government counter-proposal are unnecessary because existing legislation is sufficient. Under the law as it stands, a judge can decide to deport a foreign criminal - regardless of the legality of his stay in the country - but some are never expelled because they file repeated appeals. Also, many stay in Swiss prisons because their repatriation would violate the international law stating that no person can be sent back to a country where their life might be endangered.

[...]

[T]here are already some signs that the majority of Swiss voters would favor the SVP proposal. A poll conducted earlier this year by a local newspaper in two cantons (political entities equivalent to states in the U.S.) in central Switzerland indicated that 68% of respondents favor a tougher law. And in an ongoing online survey launched by a women's magazine, over 87% say they agree with the SVP stance.


Given these numbers, SOFS's Glaettli says his organization is busy building up a coalition of left-leaning parties and taking their cause to social media to persuade voters to reject both proposals. If either is accepted by a majority of voters and cantons, Switzerland will become the first country in Europe to have a mandatory deportation clause included in its constitution. To Glaettli and his allies, that would make Switzerland the black sheep of Europe.


Predictably, the usual anti-borders "anti-racists" and their cousins, the so-called "anti-fascists" (all of whom are fanatical Caucasophobes), are against sane immigration policy.  This is true everywhere: According to Leftist pseudo-logic, any sensible anti-racist or anti-fascist prefers an African, Arab, Turkish, or ethnic Albanian Mohammedan criminal alien to a law-abiding white Christian or pagan citizen; according to the Left, to do otherwise would be to acknowledge the supremacy of the fascist, heterosexist, patriarchal, free-market capitalist system that was engineered by the white man to discriminate against cultural, racial, and sexual minorities. 

Fortunately, unlike in Britain and the United States, sanity appears to prevail in Switzerland.  For one thing, Swiss citizenship is extremely difficult to obtain.  Further, it appears likely that the Swiss are fed up with the influx of criminal aliens, and will be happy to do without them.  Whether this will lead, in the long term, to a reduction of Swiss immigration levels is a larger question that begs asking.

29th November, 2010 Update:  The proposal has passed in a popular referendum with turnout of 53%, rather than the usual 40% for Swiss referenda.  According to Reuters, the usual refined, respectable, tolerant liberalism accompanied the results: Thousands of opponents of the referendum result marched through Zurich and smashed shop windows, a Reuters witness said. In the capital Berne, there were about 500 protesters, some of whom threw snowballs and bottles at police in front of parliament, officials said.  In the same referendum, 58.5% of voters rejected a proposed minimum cantonal (provincial) tax on the very rich.

Elias Abuelazam: Hero

Keith Luke, an American hero, bravely resisted Third World immigration and the Jewish domination of the United States, but to no avail.  Now he is suffering in gaol, where his throat has been slit. It seems, however, that someone has followed in his glorious footsteps.

From Haaretz on 12th August, 2010:

Elias Abuelazam, alleged to have committed a series of stabbings in three U.S. states, was arrested in Atlanta as he tried to board a Delta flight to Tel Aviv.

An Israeli man suspected in a string of 20 stabbings that terrorized people across three U.S. states and left five dead was arrested at an airport as he tried to board a plane for Israel, officials said Thursday.

A judge in Flint, Mich., where the attacks began in late May, signed a warrant Thursday charging Elias Abuelazam, 33, with assault with intent to murder in connection with a July 27 stabbing.

Israeli media reported that Abuelazam, an Israeli citizen and former resident of Ramle, recently visited Israel, but has been living in the U.S. legally.

[...]

The attacks began surfacing in late spring, and picked up the pace as the stabber traversed the country.


Police have said they usually follow a pattern: The suspect approaches black men late at night on lonely urban roads and asks for directions or help with a broken-down car. Then, without warning, he pulls out a knife and strikes. Then, he speeds away in his vehicle, leaving them for dead.

The brazen nature and the frequency of the attacks — the assailant has struck an average of about once every four days since the first stabbing in May — has terrified some of those in cities he's already targeted.


The victims have been mostly black [Also dark-skinned Hispanic. -- The Wandering White], and police suspect the attacks may have been racially motivated.

[...]

Elias Abuelazam, a heroic Greek Orthodox Israeli Arab, has set an example that right-thinking people should follow all over the world.  Faced with intractable populations of increasingly dominant, malicious Negroes in nations dominated by state-enforced political correctness, cultural-Marxist lynch-mob justice, and nearly universal lack of state respect for property rights, Whites should take the initiative and resist their Negro oppressors to the fullest extent possible. 

Weapons of mass destruction should not be ruled out:  The prospect of a nuclear weapon destroying Washington, DC, thereby killing the Kenyan-born, Mohammedan, neo-Marxist mulatto Hussein Obongo and his globalist, anti-White -- Attorney General Eric Holder comes to mind as a leader in the game of anti-White, anti-military bigotry -- American federal government lapdogs (as well as many less powerful but equally abhorrent DC Negroes) should delight anyone unwilling to travel the road to serfdom with the united Negro and mulatto kleptocrats and Marxo-Keynesians of the world. 

Elias Abuelazam, I salute you!

The International Court of Justice, the United Nations, and Kosovo

By Vojin Joksimovich on 27th July, 2010:

On July 22 the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that the general international law, UN Security Council Resolution #1244 or the Constitutional Framework did not prohibit declarations of independence in reference to the unilateral declaration of 17 February 2008 by the Kosovo Albanians. The advisory ruling was requested by the UN General Assembly at the request of Serbia. The ruling surprised many legal experts who didn’t expect such a [sic] straightforward language. It was expected that the ruling would allow all sides to save their faces [sic]. Invariably Serbia has been and continues to be the loser. An explanation is that the judges didn’t rule on the subject of right of secession from the Republic of Serbia. They have also sidestepped the key issue whether there is legal basis in international law for secession. At the same time the judges acted irresponsibly by ignoring possible consequences. The ruling did not say if Kosovo was a state. It didn’t say whether it was compatible with the international law if sovereign states recognize Kosovo’s independence. Outside the legal profession, the nuance between the declaration of independence and the secession will in all likelihood be ignored.


While the ruling is advisory and it is up to the UN General Assembly to act on it, it is an immeasurable blow to Serbia and the international law. This ruling essentially completes dismantling of the international law, which started on March 24, 1999 when the NATO bombs and cruise missiles started raining over Serbian targets, marking the first time in NATO’s 50-yr history that the alliance directed its military might—second to none in the world—at a sovereign nation, which posed no threat or even ill intentions to the U.S. or Europe, breaking the international law seven ways without approval of the U.S. Congress in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The same court hinted that the NATO aggression was illegal while denying Yugoslavia’s plea for a halt in bombing.


[...]

Indeed, the United Nations is planning a resolution concerning Kosovo independence.  Serbia quite naturally objects, pointing out that this would pave the way for a new model of secession, whereby ethnic minorities would simply unilaterally sign declarations of independence.  Although the fate of the resolution is uncertain, thanks to the dhimmified West and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (except for Russia), it seems most likely -- based on prior experience -- that China and Russia will veto this piece of suicidal Western bleeding-heart stupidity, if and when it should pass. 

It is worth noting, as Srdja Trifkovic has done, that Kosovo independence threatens Israel's existence, not only by creating another Islamic state (run by the Kosovo Liberation Army no less), but by creating a precedent for Arab secession from Israel.  Unfortunately, as Dr. Trifkovic pointed out in his outstanding Chronicles article Kosovo: A Threat to Israel's Survival, the American Israel Lobby is preoccupied with obtaining Islamic brownie points for Israel by supporting Kosovo secession, and Israel itself has apparently taken in Albanian Mohammedan "refugees".  That these were "refugees" from Serbian self-defence against jihad does not seem to have occured to the Israelis.  It also does not seem to have struck the Israelis as relevant that Serbs saved Jews during WWII while under intense persecution from the Croatian Ustasha and Bosnian Mohammedan Handschar divisions of the Waffen SS.  Nor has it struck the Israelis as relevant that Serbs have generally treated their Jewish population well, or that Croatia, which recognises Kosovo, has returned to Nazism, funded by Germany, a nation that has not forgotten it was started down its path to humiliation in two world wars by its intemperate reaction to the act of a Bosnian Serb acting as an instrument of Russian terrorists.   A notable, welcome exception to this Israeli ship of fools is the Moldovan-born Israeli Foreign Minister and leader of the Yisrael Beytenu party, Avigdor Lieberman.

The United States should have remained faithful to its Reagan-era policy of support for a strong, indepedendent Yugoslavia; instead, President Bill Clinton, Gen. Wesley Clarke, Gen. Colin Powell, and a coalition of gullible Jewish organisations, liberals, neocons, and malicious Albanian-American lobbyists linked to the KLA gave rise to the policy of collaborating with Germany to carry out a NATO invasion that ultimately destroyed the sovereign state of Yugoslavia.

According to the article A Perfect Failure, written by Michael Mandelbaum and published in Foreign Affairs in 1999:

[...]

NATO waged the war not for its interests but on behalf of its values. The supreme goal was the well-being of the Albanian Kosovars. By this standard, although the worst outcome--the permanent exile of the Albanians from Kosovo--was avoided, the war was not successful.



[...]

The basic precept of international law is the prohibition against interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign states. Without this rule there would be no basis for international order of any kind. But if the rule is inviolable, rulers can mistreat people in any way they like as long as the mistreatment takes place within legally recognized borders. Thus, in recent years international practice has begun to permit exceptions, but only under two conditions, neither of which was present in NATO's war against Yugoslavia.



One condition is a gross violation of human rights. The Serb treatment of Albanians in Kosovo before the NATO bombing was hardly exemplary, but measured by the worst of all human rights violations--murder--neither was it exceptionally bad. Far fewer people had died as a result of fighting in Kosovo before the bombing started than had been killed in civil strife in Sierra Leone, Sudan, or Rwanda--African countries in which NATO showed no interest in intervening. Thus NATO's war did nothing to establish a viable standard for deciding when humanitarian intervention may be undertaken. Instead, it left the unfortunate impression that, in the eyes of the West, an assault terrible enough to justify military intervention is the kind of thing that happens in Europe but not in Africa.

[...]
 
Hashim Thaci, the current Prime Minister of Kosovo, is the former political leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which has carried out the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from their ancient heartland of Kosovo. The KLA was originally Maoist, but is now Islamic-- as is the case with many terrorist organisations that have turned from Marxism to Mohammedanism or merged the two ideologies. The United States is engaged in utter hypocrisy with respect to its professed fight against al-Qaeda, since the KLA -- which the United States supports vigorously -- has taken up the cause of bin Laden in the Balkans. It remains to be seen how this will turn out, but NATO, and more generally Western, involvement in the Balkans -- and other places threatened by Mohammedanism -- under Presidents Clinton, Bush, Jr., and Obama has done further harm to the endangered cause of freedom and security in Europe.

26th September, 2010 Update:

Serbia has effectively relinquished its claim to Kosovo in exchange for a better chance of membership in the EUSSR.

9th October, 2010 Update:

To curry favour with the EUSSR, Serbia's "pro-Western" government is staging a forced "gay pride" parade, complete with 5,000 police in full riot gear to save the few hundred "LGBT activists" from the people's will.  Srdja Trifkovic writes:

[...]

On October 10 the first “gay pride parade” will be staged in Belgrade. The government has been promoting the event as yet another proof that Serbia is fit to join the European Union, that is has overcome the legacy of its dark, intolerant past. It has threatened the opponents of the spectacle with violence and judicial consequences. It has earned praise from all the right quarters in Brussels, Washington and the NGO sector for its “public commitment to … thwart any attempt to stop the march from proceeding to its conclusion.” There will be five thousand policemen in full riot gear marching with a few hundred “LBGT” activists on the day.


This is pure anarchotyranny in action. The current government in Belgrade is quite powerless to protect its citizens from harassment in the NATO-occupied province of Kosovo. It is powerless to prevent young jihadists from pelting with stones tourist buses from non-Muslim areas in the majority-Muslim region of Novi Pazar—not in Kosovo, mind you, but in “Serbia Proper.” It is powerless to stop rampant corruption by its own functionaries and politically associated cronies. It is powerless to halt open war-mongering by Islamic extremists such as Mufti Zukorlic in the Sandzak region in the south, or advocacy of ethnic separatism by Hungarian activists in the north. It is powerless to evict the Gypsy criminal underclass from usurping prime real estate in the nation’s capital. It is unable and unwilling to arrest and prosecute mafia bosses, privatization tycoons and foreign agents in its own ranks.



At the same time, the regime of Serbia’s Euro-Integrators led by President Boris Tadic is brutally efficient in clamping down on those “extremists” who dare protest the promotion of sodomy and who dislike the imposition of psychopathological “norms” imposed by the regime’s foreign mentors. It is good at normalizing criminality and criminalizing normality. Serbia will never enter the EU, of course, and it will never be absolved of its alleged sins harking back to the Milosevic era, but in terms of anarchotyrannical shackles it is eminently “Western” already.

[...]

The American Federal Government and the War in Afghanistan

The American federal government is dominated by corruption at the highest level. While we may properly expect such corruption from the likes of Afghanistan, Africa, or Russia, this degree of sheer lawlessness and graft in American political life appeared first with the Radical Reconstruction, and reappeared later in the form of the New Deal. With the Civil Rights movement, limited government was definitively rejected, and the United States were placed on the path to their present predicament, in which the federal government acts on behalf of invaders.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced on a trip to Ecuador, where many aspiring undocumented Democrats doubtless reside, the American federal government -- whose creation was wisely resisted by Patrick Henry and other authors of The Anti-Federalist Papers -- will sue Arizona to prevent it from enforcing federal immigration law. Thus, the American federal government is now at odds with its own rules and regulations, making it in effect a renegade institution.

In similarly appalling news: This blog has discussed political correctness in the American military. While this is a problem, soldiers in the United States remain far more patriotic than civilians. By George F. Will in The Washington Post on 20th June, 2010:

[...]

The value of any particular counterinsurgency must be weighed against the risks implicit in the required tactics. The U.S. mission in Afghanistan involves trying to extend the power, over many people who fear it, of a corrupt government produced by a corrupted election. This gives rise to surreal strategies. The Wall Street Journal recently reported U.S. attempts "to persuade [President Hamid] Karzai to act more presidential by giving him more responsibility for operations inside his country." Think about that.


Ann Marlowe, a visiting fellow of the Hudson Institute who has been embedded with U.S. forces in Afghanistan six times, says there have been successes at the local and even provincial levels "but nothing that has lasted even a year." And the election fraud last August that secured Karzai another five-year term was symptomatic: His "government has become more egregiously corrupt and incompetent in the last three or four years." Last month Marlowe reported: "The Pentagon's map of Afghanistan's 80 most key districts shows only five 'sympathetic' to the Afghan government -- and none supporting it." She suggests that Karzai might believe that President Obama's announced intention to begin withdrawing U.S. troops next summer "is a bluff." Those Americans who say that Afghanistan is a test of America's "staying power" are saying that we must stay there because we are there. This is steady work, but it treats perseverance as a virtue regardless of context or consequences and makes futility into a reason for persevering.

[...]

Meanwhile, General Stanley McChrystal and his team explained in a Rolling Stone interview their disappointment with the Kenyan usurper, for whom McChrystal claims to have voted. If so, it was idiotic, and proves him to be -- in Lenin's terminology -- one of the "deaf-mute blindmen" of the Western democracies. Obongo responded by sacking McChrystal, who is merely a dispensable four star general.

As with corporal punishment in schools, capital punishment of criminals, diversity, the European Union, Mohammedanism, and mass Third World immigration, the BNP are right: "Support the troops, bring them home."

24th June, 2010 Update:

Today, by Thomas D. Segel for GOP USA:

It is official, After personal comments about the civilian leadership had been voiced by General Stanley McChrystal and his Aides, he is gone and General David Petraeus will assume command in Afghanistan.


This does not mean our military personnel on the ground in that war zone will develop any greater fondness for the civilian establishment there. As was the case in Vietnam, most of our troops will view the civilians who command them with suspicion. But, those same military personnel will be showing much more caution when speaking about their leaders in front of the media.

The unanswered question is; Why do our men and women in uniform feel so contumacious toward their civilian leadership? Much of the anxiety may well be due to irrational rules of engagement that are forced on combat troops be the key civilians who view everything from a political spectrum.


The Good Lord knows my combat strategy is really limited to what I could observe through the sights of my rifle in those long ago days of my youth. My last combat command decisions were made more than 45 years ago when I was ordered to have my Marines defend the parameter of a Seabee base under attack by the Viet Cong. With those to items as qualifiers, I can still state without reservation that no war was ever won on defense. It is also a truth that no military unit can function at peak efficiency when it is saddled with unrealistic rules of engagement.

I for one, see shadows of Vietnam in just about everything we are doing in Afghanistan. We are trying to prop up a very corrupt and unpopular government, drive out an enemy force that is a historical occupant of the territory under dispute, hold on to terrain without the troop strength to occupy the territory for any extended period and do all of these things while operating under a convoluted rules of engagement policy that few can either understand or defend.

Back in the early days of Vietnam, when it was just an "operation" and not a "war', I remember how we would draw perimeter defense duty to protect our base in DaNang. Even then, we had those crazy rules of engagement. For example, all of us along the perimeter manned our posts without ammunition in our weapons. Under the rules of that time, all ammunition was kept in a locked bunker. There was an ammunition officer who had the only key. Our instructions were, if we received enemy fire, the ammunition officer would unlock the bunker, issue the ammo and we would then engage the enemy.


Anyone with half a brain thought this was an insane approach to perimeter defense. What if the first person hit or blown up was the ammunition officer? What were we supposed to do if that happened? Needless to say, there was not a person on the line who did not have a hidden stash of ammo on his person.


Troops who were stationed in Saigon at that time went to their duty assignments every day wearing helmets and carrying there assigned weapons and ammunition. They were all cautioned that there was a war being fought and they must always be ready for battle. However, they were also allowed to wander the city at night, frequent eating establishments, shops and bars. When strolling those streets in the dark of night, they were NOT allowed to carry any weapons. Go figure!


Today in Afghanistan our soldiers and Marines may only return fire when under attack, are refused air strikes and artillery support, and have even been denied smoke coverage when they needed to conceal their movements. All of this is supposed to reduce any civilian casualties. That may be one result, but, it is also true that more and more of our own military personal are being wounded or killed. In addition, their movements are being restricted and they are being reduced to a defensive posture, not having sufficient strength of force to keep waging an ongoing attack. Territory that should remain occupied to protect the civilian population is often left undefended.


Of the 40,000 troops requested to meet the needs of a sustained offensive operation, the President only granted 30,000. Even that number has not been received. At last count there were still 10,000 promised troops who had not been deployed to Afghanistan and their ranks remain unfilled today.


So, now we have lost a general, promised troops have not arrived and those strangling rules of engagement remain in place. Dare we ask the big question... are we really winning the war?

The Roots of the Manchurian President

This blogger encourages all readers -- especially those who doubt President Obama's radical credentials -- to read Aaron Klein's expose The Manchurian President.

By J.R. Nyquist on 11th June, 2010:

Have you ever been to the Website of the Communist Party USA? It's worth studying, if only to compare the policy positions taken by the Communists with your own. Are you a fellow traveler? Are you a friend or ally of the left? Perhaps, up until now, you have been following the party line unwittingly. And what, pray tell, is the party line? "A better world is possible," says the Communist Party USA, "a world where people come before profits. That's socialism. That's our vision." The Communists also want us to support the elimination of America's nuclear arsenal through the observance of "Nuclear Abolition Day." They want to end the travel ban to Communist Cuba. They condemn Israel's brutality on the high seas, and support oppressed people everywhere. They are concerned about global warming, and hate the wicked machinations of finance capital.

Communists aren't likely to support the oppressed of Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam, or Zimbabwe. Understandably, the American Communist does not dwell upon the brutalities of Communist rule in other countries. He wants to establish a positive image in order to win new "friends and allies." As it happens, the Communists in America have countless friends and allies: in schools and universities, on newspapers and on television, even in government.

The leader of the Communist Party USA, Sam Webb, offered the following "verbal remarks" to the 29th National Convention of the Communist Party USA last month: He congratulated Communism's "friends and allies" on recent achievements. "What a difference between now and five years ago when we convened in Chicago!" he exclaimed. "At that time a Puerto Rican woman raised in the South Bronx didn't sit on the Supreme Court. Then the president didn't call for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Millions had no health care and no promise of it in the near future.... We weren't in a position to fight for a progressive agenda, but on the defensive. The pendulum of power didn't yet tilt in favor of working people, people of color, women and their allies. And, an African American wasn't president."

According to Webb, Obama's election ended "the long night of rule" when the country's most reactionary groups were in power. The Communists, with help from their allies and friends, had pushed back the reactionaries. But, he warned, "Corporate negligence is killing miners and oil workers" while a "racist and anti-immigrant offensive is thick in the air, the planet's temperature is rising, debt is piling up, and the right wing and finance capital ... are regrouping and trying their damnedest to reconstitute their power." The key to thwarting rightwing extremism, lectured Webb, is to keep following the applied strategy that "deepened our mass connections" contributing to the "historic victory in 2008...." It is vital, Webb explained, "that we further build and unite the working class based coalition that came together to elect President Obama." This coalition must grow stronger, in order to "consolidate the victory against rightwing extremism and, in doing so, weaken the capitalist class as a whole."


The Communists, says Webb, know that they cannot "skin the rightwing cat" by themselves. They need a popular movement up front, a broad "people's coalition" that extends far outside the political left. The Communist Party also needs "good sense in its strategic orientation, flexibility in its tactics, and freshness and imagination in its analysis." In that event, says Webb, Communism's best days "are ahead of us!" It is also important to realize, he explained, that "we are part of an international movement." Yes, that's right. Part of something much larger.

A decisive victory over the right is possible, noted the Communist leader. "Thus, the struggle against the right, as some suggest, doesn't submerge or bypass or postpone the class struggle; on the contrary, it is evident that it brings to the surface, clears the ground, and creates a more favorable terrain for a more open struggle against finance capital, corporate power, neo-liberalism, and imperial rule. For now we are in a transitional stage."

The language is familiar to those who have studied the long range strategy of the Communist movement globally. It is also the language of Soviet strategy. "In short," said Webb, "people's anger is growing, the popular mood is changing, and the coalition that elected the president is moving forward again. Yes we can!"


[...]

So the leader of the Communist Party USA can say openly, in plain view, what his party is doing. The deaf and dumb will not realize what is happening. The top Communist leadership is calling for "an incredible grassroots effort" by labor, women, youth immigrants and "racially oppressed people." These will be mobilized to "turn back rightwing extremism and increase the Democratic majority in both chambers in Congress."

[...]

In fact, Communist Party National Chair Webb laid out a political agenda for President Obama.  As New Zealand blogger Trevor Loudon explained:

Barack Obama has been beholden to the Communist Party USA for decades. From the boyhod mentoring he received from Frank Marshall Davis, to support for his 2004 Senate campaign , ongoing work in Chicago and mass party support in his 2008 presidential run.


Now it[']s payback time.

The Party wants Obama to deliver a new "New Deal"-a massive extension of government and union power that will permanently transform US society.


By using pressure from the "bottom up and the top down", the Communist Party aims to squeeze the US middle class into accepting its socialist program.



Here is a speech given by Communist Party National Chair Sam Webb in which he made his demands of President Obama on 17th May, 2009 (Hat Tip: New Zeal):

On the heels of the first 100 days of our new President, we heard nearly endless commentary and analysis. Much of it was favorable; and some wasn’t.


I would like to briefly add my two cents


After the first 100 days I would say without hesitation or qualification that the political atmosphere, landscape, conversation and agenda compared to the previous eight years of the Bush administration have changed dramatically.


To borrow an expression of Jarvis Tyner, the executive vice chair of our party, “What was once impossible during the Bush years has become possible, thanks to the election of Barack Obama.”


In this new political climate, we can foresee winning a public option, like Medicare, in the current legislative fight over health care reform.


We can visualize enacting tough regulatory reforms on the financial industry that brought the economy to ruin.

We can imagine bringing the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, while being part of a regional process that brings peace and stability to the entire region.

In this new political climate, the expansion of union rights in this legislative session is not only sensible, it’s doable.

Much the same can be said about winning a second stimulus bill, and we sure need one, given the still rising and likely long term persistence of unemployment with the heaviest burden, as usual, falling on communities of color.

Isn’t it possible in the post-Bush era to launch a vigorous attack on global warming and create millions of green jobs in manufacturing and elsewhere?

Can’t we envision taking new strides in the long journey for racial and gender equality in this new era, marked at its beginning by the election of the first African American to the presidency?
And isn’t the overhaul of the criminal justice and prison system – a system steeped in racism and employing punitive treatment as it organizing principle – no longer pie in the sky, but something that can be done in the foreseeable future?

All these --- and many other --- things are within our reach now!


We can dream again, knowing that the gap between our dreams and reality is bridgeable.


We can turn King’s words --- that “justice roll down like a mighty stream” --- into a living reality for every American.


We can re-bend the arc of history in the direction of justice and peace.
But only if we, and millions like us, do our part in these struggles, much like we did last year.
Neither President Obama nor progressive congress people can do it by themselves --- they can’t be the only change agents.


After all, they are up against formidable opposition.


On the one hand the extreme right is badly weakened, but is still a poisonous and reactionary political presence in our nation.


On the other hand, the Obama change coalition includes people and groups that want to cut down on the scope and sweep of the reform agenda.


So both the new president and new congress need our help. Our responsibility is support them as well as prod and constructively take issue with them when we have differing views.


But more importantly – and this is the nub of the problem – we have to reach, activate, unite and turn millions of Americans into change agents who can make the political difference in these struggles.


Changes of a progressive nature, especially major ones--- if history is any guide --- usually combine the bottom up and the top down.

So the challenge facing the discontented of our land is to be the bottom up change agents this year and in the years to come.

Our parents and grandparent did exactly that in the Depression years. Not happy with the pace and substance of change, they sat down in plants and in the fields, marched on Washington, petitioned local relief agencies, lobbied for a social safety net, established unemployed and nationality (immigrant) groups, organized industrial workers, opposed discrimination and racism, elected New Dealers to Congress and re-elected Roosevelt in a landslide in 1936, and turned (not all at once and not perfectly) multi-racial unity into an organizing principle.

I am confident the American people in their millions – reeling under the weight of this terrible economic crisis and yearning for a more decent, equal, peaceful and just world – will follow their example and turn this country into a more perfect union.

Yes we can --- Si se puede!

Indeed, virtually everything Webb expressed his desire to see has either been fulfilled, or else is very much in the works, including American nuclear disarmament.

From Once Upon a Time in the West on 24th March, 2009:

The US government has also been silent with respect to two important, apparently related incidents that took place on March 20. The MSM revealed yesterday that Obama and Vice President Joe Biden met former Soviet tyrant Mikhail (“I’ll Always Be a Communist”) Gorbachev at the White House last Friday, in what can only be described as a “secret meeting” since the encounter was not previously published on the US president’s official daily schedule. Reuters news agency acquired the revelation via Gorby’s spokesman Konstantin Petrenko, who refused to divulge details of the discussion.


When White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was grilled at a news conference about why the meeting between Obama, Biden, and Gorbachev was not previously disclosed, Gibbs offered an incredible explanation: “The president tends to roam around the larger (White) House and sometimes walks into meetings that weren't previously on his schedule.” We can only speculate about the subject matter that President Obama discussed with the Soviet strategists’ top PR man. However, a clue may be afforded from Gorbachev’s praise for Obama last November.

Following the president’s election Gorbachev, in an interview with Italy’s La Stampa, urged Obama to implement “perestroika” (restructuring) in the USA to “overcome the financial crisis and restore balance in the world.” He complained that “The Republicans have failed to realize that the Soviet Union no longer exists, that Europe has changed, and that new powers like China, Brazil and Mexico have emerged as important players on the world stage. The world is waiting for Obama to act. The White House needs to restore trust in cooperation with the United States among the Russians.” Gorbachev then referred to Obama as a "man of our times":


This is a man of our times, he is capable of restarting dialogue, all the more since the circumstances will allow him to get out of a dead-end situation. Barack Obama has not had a very long career, but it is hard to find faults, and he has led an election campaign winning over the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton herself. We can judge from this that this person is capable of engaging in dialogue and understanding current realities.

Novosti picked up Gorbachev’s La Stampa interview, as well as Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s opinion of the US president, expressed in the Russian business daily Vedomosti. Khodorkovsky founded the now defunct Yukos oil giant but is presently serving a prison term on fraud and tax evasion charges. Like Gorbachev, he used the word perestroika in describing the future direction of the Obama administration. “Being a liberal myself,” Khodorkovsky pontificated, “I think that the world will take a left turn and that a global perestroika would be a logical response to the global crisis.” Sounding like a communist rather than a capitalist, he added: “The paradigm of global development is about to change. The era inaugurated by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher 30 years ago is over. Decisions in neoliberal economies have been made mainly by supranational institutions and transnational corporations.” Khodorkovsky predicted:

Globalization will slow to a crawl, but will not stop. The 'golden billion' of the world's richest people will have to abandon hopes of increasing their wealth, but high consumer standards which developed at the end of the 20th century will be unaffected by the change. The striving for political freedom and open competition of personalities and ideas will not disappear.


To what sort of “restructuring” is master communist deceiver Gorbachev and Komsomol capitalist Khodorkovsky alluding? Why, socialism, of course. In the 1980s Gorbachev outlined his vision of a “mature socialist society” in Russia and a world conquered for communism. In Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World (Harper & Row, 1987), the not-so-retired Soviet dictator writes:

Perestroika is closely connected with socialism as a system. That side of the matter is being widely discussed, especially abroad, and our talk about perestroika won't be entirely clear if we don't touch upon that aspect.

Does perestroika mean that we are giving up socialism or at least some of its foundations? Some ask this question with hope, others with misgiving.

. . .To put an end to all the rumors and speculations that abound in the West about this, I would like to point out once again that we are conducting our reforms in accordance with the socialist choice. We are looking within socialism, rather than outside it, for the answers to all the questions that arise. We assess our successes and errors alike by socialist standards. Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our program of perestroika--and the program as a whole, for that matter--is fully based on the principle of more socialism and more democracy.

More socialism means a more dynamic pace and creative endeavor, more organization, law and order, more scientific methods and initiative in economic management, efficiency in administration, and a better and materially richer life for the people.

More socialism means more democracy, openness and collectivism in everyday life, more culture and humanism in production, social and personal relations among people, more dignity and self-respect for the individual.

More socialism means more patriotism and aspiration to noble ideals, more active civic concern about the country's internal affairs and about their positive influence on international affairs.

In other words, more of all those things which are inherent in socialism and in the theoretical precepts which characterize it as a distinct socio-economic formation.

We will proceed toward better socialism rather than away from it.

. . .We want more socialism and, therefore, more democracy. [pages 36-37]


If the socialist nature of perestroika is still unclear, in spite of the above quote, then consider the following excerpt from a report that Gorbachev delivered to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's Central Committee and the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on November 2, 1987:

The idea of perestroika rests upon our seventy-year history, on the sound foundation of the basically new social edifice erected in the Soviet Union; it combines continuity and innovation, the historical experience of Bolshevism and what socialism is today. It is up to us to continue and carry forward the cause of the pioneers of the Revolution and of socialism. And we are certain to achieve this by our work, by making creative use of the experience of the generations that blazed the October trail before us [October and Perestroika: The Revolution Continues. Ottawa: Soviet Embassy, 1987].

Last Friday, at the secret White House meeting, did Gorbachev personally urge President Obama to implement socialist restructuring in the USA? Since Obama is in fact an under-the-radar socialist this scenario is very possible, which means America has most certainly entered its last days as a free country. A startling essay by Tom Fife, “The First Time I Heard of Barack,” exposes the US president as a veritable “Manchurian Candidate.” Fife is a software developer who visited Russia between 1992 and 1994 in order to launch a business in collaboration with “some people from the Russian scientific community.” We cannot vouch for the authenticity of Fife’s sources, but simply reproduce below, for the reader's consideration, the statements of “T.M.,” a Russian woman devoted to the “communist cause,” uttered in 1992.

Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon. What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?


Well, you will; and he will be a Communist. Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call "Ivy League". You don't believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That's right, a chocolate baby! And he's going to be your President.


It's all been thought out. His father is not an American black so he won't have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He's gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America.

"She was full of little details about him,” Fife continues, “that she was eager to relate. I thought that maybe she was trying to show off that this truly was a real person and not just hot air. She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the legislature.”

“Have no doubt,” T.M. gushed, “he is one of us, a Soviet. . . . he will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world."

"So, what does this conversation from 1992 prove? Well, it's definitely anecdotal,” Fife admits, adding:

It doesn't prove that Obama has had Soviet Communist training nor that he was groomed to be the first black American president, but it does show one thing that I think is very important. It shows that Soviet Russian Communists knew of Barack from a very early date. It also shows that they truly believed among themselves that he was raised and groomed Communist to pave the way for their future. This report on Barack came personally to me from one of them long before America knew he existed. Although I had never before heard of him, at the time of this conversation Obama was 30+ years old and was obviously tested enough that he was their anticipated rising star.

In fact, it is not only the CPUSA, but also the Nation of Islam and other black supremacist and Islamic organisations and personalities that have shaped Obama's worldview.

One of Obama's supporters, a Wahhabi activist and advisor to the Saudi royals named Khalid al-Mansour, stated:

White people don’t feel bad, whatever you do to them, they deserve it [...] God wants you to do it and that’s when you cut out the nose, cut out the ears, take flesh out of their body, don’t worry because God wants you to do it.

Obama also worked for a jihadist, Rashid Khalidi.  Obama's longtime pastor, a follower of black liberation theology named Jeremiah Wright, has made numerous statements of interest, among them:
 
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.” (Sep 2001)

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.” (2003)


“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.” (magazine article)


“Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.” (sermon)

“Barack [Obama] knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary [Clinton]would never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”

“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.” (sermon)


“The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”

See here, for a video in which the Reverend Wright claims the Christ was a black man living under the rule of rich white men. 

It was the Russian neo-Eurasianist, GRU-linked strategist Aleksandr Dugin who wrote that it was possible for the Russian special services and their allies in the United States (the Communist Party doubtless among them) "to make use of the political forces of Afro-American racists".

Let us hope the American people will wake up and throw these men back where they belong.