A prime characteristic of Western ‘liberalism’

It is often claimed that Western liberalism or neoliberalism ‘only’ applies totalitarian measures outside Western borders.

This is not quite true. In fact, the corporate fascist nature of the regime running America is in plain sight for all to see:


The tyranny of western liberalism

Unless you have been living on a different planet for the past few decades, the violence and extremism of Western liberals must by now be a source of curiosity and horror.
Simply put: since the beginning of the 20th century, Western liberals championing ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ together with ‘secularism’ in government, have been involved in innumerable acts of genocide against defenceless civilians all across the world.
The ‘technology’ used in this Western liberal horror show has usually included the development, mass production and use of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) specifically made to mass murder civilians.
In the name of ‘freedom’ and ‘peace’, such weapons are subsequently ‘banned’ under laws developed in the main by Western liberals in forums such as the United Nations, which was also set up in the main by Western liberals.
This then becomes ‘international law’ under which most countries are forbidden to develop and/or use such ‘inhuman’ technology after Western liberals are done with using them (Napalm or the atom bomb, to name a couple) against the rest of the world, and before others develop similar technology.
At the same time, Western liberals move on to make and use new WMDs that have not as yet been banned, but would be in the future as soon as others show signs of catching up.
If we look up the meaning of ‘liberal’ in a dictionary, we find it defined as ‘tolerant of different views and standards of behaviour in others’ or ‘favouring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual’.
Look up ‘liberalism’ and you get ‘a belief in tolerance and gradual reform in moral, religious, or political matters’. You also get ‘a political ideology with its beginnings in western Europe that rejects authoritarian government and defends freedom of speech, association, and religion, and the right to own property’.
How is it then that Western liberals are so astoundingly intolerant of the views and perspectives of other people in this world?
And why are they constantly thieving or otherwise forcibly acquiring the private property of people in other countries?
What makes them so narrow minded as to have no respect for the national sovereignty, livelihoods, property and culture of other countries to the extent that ‘bombing’ is the preferred option, often following on from ‘sanctions’ that amount to collective punishment of whole nations (a war crime) without any evident will or desire for dialogue and diplomacy?
Western liberals will spend enormous energy on dismissing, belittling and attacking other political beliefs and systems. In fact, they thrive on the act of identifying some ‘evil threat’ that must be ‘eradicated’.
Not all that long ago, that evil was ‘communism’. When that ‘evil’ finally gave way in 1989, the one and only real brake on the Western liberals’ domination of the world appeared to have disappeared. A liberal-minded person may have expected that to be the start of a long phase of growing peace and stability in the world.
But Western liberals would allow no such thing. Instead, they had found ‘terrorism’ as a useful propaganda tool for terrorising their own people, and delivered real, concrete terror to other countries’ civilian populations.
With the collapse of the Soviets, they also managed to stitch the ‘evil’ brand to ‘Islamic terrorists’.
This helped Western liberals’ long march toward world domination (who needs ‘Zion’ when you can try to take the whole planet instead?!) a great deal, winning them much needed domestic ‘democratic’ support for continuing their maniacal quest.
And it dovetailed beautifully with the fall of the Soviets, especially as it was these same ‘Islamic terrorists’ who had been the final nail in the coffin of the Soviets in Afghanistan.   It did not appear to matter that Western liberals were directly responsible for arming, training and funding these same ‘Islamic terrorists’ in Afghanistan in the first place.
It seemed to matter even less that these ‘Islamic terrorists’ were grown by the CIA in Afghanistan – much like Opium – before the Soviets invaded the country.
In fact, the CIA funded and trained Islamic Mujahedin were the bait that Western liberals were hoping to lure the Soviets into Afghanistan, and the plan (to hand the Soviets their own ‘Vietnam’) worked. But no one is interested in such truths, at least not among the ‘liberals’ of the West.
Today we can see the latest reincarnation of these same games in Syria and Iraq with the advent of Daesh (ISIL).   Daesh is a direct product of brutal American imperialism in the Middle East.
Western liberals encourage and support such ‘terrorists’ and then attack them as soon as they do what they have always said they would do from the very beginning. In a sense, tomorrow’s news on Daesh is already yesterday’s news before it has even happened.
The question here is not so much the atrocities committed by Western liberals of all creeds and shades throughout the past century (for that is now common knowledge).   Rather, the issue being raised here is how it is that such intolerant, heartless, warmongering and genocidal terrorists have come to refer to themselves as ‘liberals’.
Can anyone explain?

So who shot down flight MH17?

I’m not an aviation or explosives expert or anything like that, but simple common sense points to some major flaws in the West’s claims about flight MH17.

And, why exactly is there no noise from the West about this disaster any more? Why the silence and sudden lack of interest in the truth and justice for the victims?

Take a look at this picture:

I got the picture from this German source, and what I’m stating here is largely from that same source.  

The picture shows damage to the Plane’s cockpit. The other pictures that exist from the wreckage do not show such damage to other parts of the plane. The plane was attacked at its front end. And the holes look like there was a heavy barrage of something like a big machine gun. Or a spray of extremely heavy shrapnel or whatever they call it!

 Now, a very important fact to note in the picture is that there are 2 types of holes clearly visible. One type has signs of an outward explosion, as if the bullets were exiting the surface of the cockpit. These holes or tears on the surface appear to bend outwards.

And the other type of holes show smaller, round holes as if bullets were fired at the cockpit from the outside.

The logical conclusion is that the cockpit was attacked from 2 different sides! Whatever the weapon that was used, the bullets or missiles entered the plane’s cockpit from opposite sides of the aircraft. 

This means that this damage to the cockpit could not possibly have been made by an anti-aircraft missile fired at the plane, be it of the air-to-air or surface-to-air type.

Now, there is another separate source that states:

“Yesterday, the New Straits Times quoted experts who had said that photographs of the blast fragmentation patterns on the fuselage of the airliner showed two distinct shapes — the shredding pattern associated with a warhead packed with “flechettes”, and the more uniform, round-type penetration holes consistent with that of cannon rounds.”

And it goes on to describe the evidence of the first external ‘monitors’ on the scene of the crash:

“Parry also cited a July 29 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview with Michael Bociurkiw, one of the first Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) investigators to arrive at the scene of the disaster, near Donetsk [stated]… “There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machinegun fire; very, very strong machinegun fire,” Bociurkiw said in the interview.”

So the question arises is: What kind of a pro-Russian rebel machine gun can target a passenger airliner flying at an altitude of 33,000 feet? None of course! This damage was more likely done by fighter jets attacking the passenger airliner:

The article goes on to state:

“It had to have been a hail of bullets from both sides that brought the plane down. This is Haisenko’s main discovery. You can’t have projectiles going in both directions — into the left-hand-side fuselage panel from both its left and right sides — unless they are coming at the panel from different directions.

“Nobody before Haisenko had noticed that the projectiles had ripped through that panel from both its left side and its right side. This is what rules out any ground-fired missile,”

In this context, I can guess why the West has basically shut up about it all!

But the question remains: Who in their right mind would do such a thing? Why shoot down a Malaysian Airline plane in the middle of a war like this?

And the only plausible answer I have heard so far – and I am open to all theories – is the one that the first article cited above concludes with. It happens to be an explanation that the Russians have proposed since this tragedy happened. Apparently, Putin was flying in a similar plane nearby at the time flight MH17 was shot down, and the Ukrainians were trying to kill him:

“If you listen to the voices from Washington now who speak of a “potentially tragic error / accident”, all that remains is the question of what might have been the nature of this “mistake” perpetrated here. I am not given to hover long in the realm of speculation, but would like to invite others to consider the following : The MH 017 looked similar in it’s tricolor design to that that of the Russian President’s plane. The plane with Presdient Putin on board was at the same time ”near” Malaysia MH 017. In aviation circles “close” would be considered to be anywhere between 150 to 200 miles. Also, in this context we might consider the deposition of Ms. Tymoshenko, who wanted to shoot Presdient Putin with a Kalashnikov.

But that this remains pure speculation. The shelling of the cockpit of air Malaysia MH 017, however, is definitely not.”

There you have it. The best explanation we have so far for this war crime is that the Ukrainians thought they were shooting down Putin’s plane when they downed Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 over Ukrainian air space.

And on the question of what type of weapon could have been used in the attack, there are some more clues cited in the above article:

“Russia recently published radar recordings, that confirm at least one Ukrainian SU 25 in close proximity to MH 017. This corresponds with the statement of the now missing Spanish controller ‘Carlos’ that has seen two Ukrainian fighter aircraft in the immediate vicinity of MH 017. If we now consider the armament of a typical SU 25 we learn this: It is equipped with a double-barreled 30-mm gun, type GSh-302 / AO-17A, equipped with: a 250 round magazine of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells (dum-dum), arranged in alternating order.”

Here are some more photos.

This fragment looks like it was hit by machine gun fire rather than a missile attack for sure:

Note how little missile or bombing damage is evident to the other plane parts on display:

 Seems to me that this is yet another Western instigated atrocity, committed by an illegitimate government that is now busy shelling its own citizens on a daily basis.

How many Zionists does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: around 178,146 

1,200 (entire Mossad HQ core staff) to launch a global propaganda campaign blaming the Palestinians and especially Hamas for a light bulb burning out in the first place

176,500 (active IDF members) to ensure that no Palestinian would have a working light bulb in ‘retaliation’ for the Israeli light bulb burning out

1 shameless miser (Israeli Prime Minister) to run cap in hand to beg for money for a new light bulb from the US president

435 to lobby every single member of the US house of representatives to pass the budget needed for a light bulb to be given as ‘aid’ to Israel

10 Israeli settlers to hold a gun to the head of a Palestinian child who would be forced to screw in the light bulb, as Apartheid would not allow a Zionist pig to actually do any real work, especially work that may shed any useful light in this world.

Total: 178,146 

Why does Israel act like Nazi Germany?

This is the question that occupies the minds of most people today, as we have witnessed yet another brutal massacre of Palestinians by Israeli warmongers, as schools, hospitals, power stations, refugee shelters etc. are being mercilessly targeted with nowhere left for Gazans to run to other than the sea. 

To some of us, the answer to the question is plain simple: Nazis and Zionists were and arethat similar. There is no surprise for both ideologies emanated from the same region (central Europe), and they are both fundamentally based on the same ludicrous and inhumane idea, namely: their own racial superiority over other human beings. 

Both Zionists and Nazis believe that they are superior to other ‘races’ at the same time as neither group actually constitutes a ‘race’ at all! Neither group, therefore, is known for its collective intelligence. So they must be ‘special’ in some other way.

Zionists, as against Jews in general, are similar to the Nazis because they take a vague notion such as ‘chosenness’ and turn it into a geopolitical aim in the same manner as the Nazis. Their shared aim is domination over others. 

The Nazis got to that point ‘scientifically’ by taking Darwinism to its ‘logical’ conclusion, and in the process proved that humans cannot be fully trusted with science or rationality.

Zionists got to the same point ‘religiously’ by taking the claims of the mythical Torah as fact, and ‘responding’ to their supremacist ‘Jehova’s call’ to establish a ‘state’ known as Israel on Palestinian land (after shopping around over Uganda and Canada etc. first), and in the process proved that humans cannot be fully trusted with religion or morality.

[Note: these are among some of the reasons why I regularly and strongly argue against science, rationality, secularism, religion or morality as ‘justifications’ for war.]

Obviously, they also share an outstanding level of stupidity for believing in such hogwash. Yet, they base their lives and political organization on such supremacist ideas.

The Nazis aimed to reach their goals by dominating Europe, and the Zionists targeted the Middle East. Both the Nazis and Zionists applied the technique of ‘ethnic cleansing’ and they both wanted the Jews to leave Europe and in this they were allies – literally, and not just figuratively. 

The greatest allies of Zionists were Europe’s anti-Semites, so said Herzl, the father of Zionism back in the 19th century. And the greatest of the anti-Semites were the Nazis who worked closely with European Zionists (as against other Zionists).

No one explains it better than Joseph Massad:

“He [Herzl] would declare in his foundational pamphlet that “the Governments of all countries scourged by Anti-Semitism will be keenly interested in assisting us to obtain [the] sovereignty we want”; and indeed that not “only poor Jews” would contribute to an immigration fund for European Jews, “but also Christians who wanted to get rid of them”.

Herzl would conclude in his Diaries that “the anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies”. These were not slips or errors but indeed a long-term strategy that Zionism and Israel continue to deploy to this very day. 

That Arthur Balfour was a well-known Protestant anti-Semite who in 1905 sponsored a bill (The Aliens Act) to prevent East European Jews fleeing pogroms from immigrating to England was not incidental to the fact that the Zionists rushed to court him, let alone to his own support of the Zionist project through the “Balfour Declaration”, which would reroute Jews away from England. 

When the Nazis took over power in Germany, the Zionists, sharing Herzl’s understanding that anti-Semitism is the ally of Zionism, were the only Jewish group who would collaborate with them. In fact, contra all other German Jews (and everyone else inside and outside Germany) who recognised Nazism as the Jews’ bitterest enemy, Zionism saw an opportunity to strengthen its colonisation of Palestine.

In 1933, Labour Zionism signed the Transfer “Ha’avara” Agreement with the Nazis, breaking the international boycott against the regime: Nazi Germany would compensate German Jews who emigrate to Palestine for their lost property by exporting German goods to the Zionists in the country thus breaking the boycott. Between 1933 and 1939, 60 percent of all capital invested in Jewish Palestine came from German Jewish money through the Transfer Agreement. Thus, Nazism was a boon to Zionism throughout the 1930s.

In 1935, the German Zionist branch was the only political force that supported the Nazi Nuremberg Laws in the country, and was the only party still allowed to publish its own newspaper the Rundschau until after Kristallnacht in 1938. Nazi officials would visit Palestine as guests of the Zionists in 1934 and in 1937. In the latter year, it was none other than Adolf Eichmann and Herbert Hagen who arrived in the country. The two were taken by the Zionist envoy Feivel Polkes to Mount Carmel to visit a Jewish colonial-settlement.

Eichmann’s second arrival in the country in the early 60s to be tried and executed was indeed his second visit, something Israeli propaganda always forgets to mention. Yet Zionism would always claim that its collaboration with anti-Semitism was strategic, namely to save Jews. 

This however does not square with the facts that during Nazi rule, Jews from Britain and the United States were given priority by the Zionists over German Jews for immigration to Palestine. Indeed, two-thirds of German Jewish applicants to immigrate to Palestine were turned down by the Zionists…” Source 

These are some of the reasons why Israel is so similar to Nazi Germany.

It was a popular global boycott of South African goods that brought down the Apartheid regime in that country in the 1990s. We can achieve the same against the disgusting Apartheid Regime that is Israel.

Boycott Israel folks, for the sake of humanity.

Good Grief! Magneto turns out to be Iranian!

No wonder ‘An’ international community is besieging Iran. They are at war with the X Men who appear to be found in Iran.

The whole thing really is that fictitious, especially with the nuclear saga and Israel’s pathetic victimhood games. Iran simply has no nuclear weapons programme and has never threatened to attack Israel.

Iran has provided military support for Hezbollah and Palestinian groups, and these have always been used in a defensive manner when under Israeli occupation and attack. And Iranian support for these groups has been miniscule as compared to the West’s support for Israel. They pose no threat to Israel other then when it acts like a rabid dog and starts attacking neighbouring civilians, as it regularly does.

Iran’s real threat to Israel is a soft one – by posing a democratic challenge that Israel has provided no respectable response for: A Palestine-wide referendum on the future of the land with the votes of all concerned counting.

The suggestion is a sound one, and one that cannot be dismissed out of hand if reason has anything to do with it.

The zionists running Israel constitute a minority, yet they hold most of the power. This is necessarily a dictatorship of a minority over the rest. It is Apartheid because it is founded on ‘race’.

Iran wants Israel’s regime wiped off the pages of time in a peaceful, democratic manner. This is an example of Iran’s positive moral standing in the world. It should be the wish of all those concerned with human rights. 

Khomeini was right. So is Khamenei. But in supporting the basic human rights of the oppressed of the world,  they are only showing basic human decency, as they should and it would be expected of them to do so. 

The real problem is the inhuman figures holding power in the West. Without their military, propaganda and financial support for Israel’s war crimes, such crimes would not be so easy to get away with.