Archive for the ‘Politics’ category

Humanitarian Murder: It’s a Gas

August 29, 2013

Here we are yet again at the precipice of war.

Some may not fully remember that we’d been here not too long before, that the narrative is almost exactly the same, and that we’ve been lied to by our “angels” holding the reins of state power ad infinitum for time immemorial.

Will Americans fall for it once more?

The war drums beating, the speeches and punditries spoken, and every fashion of ridiculous justifications and moral reasonings having been proffered, all being flashed in front of your eyes in the blue-light sparkle of your big-screen television; and all of this by the tiding media whose only life-support is the very government establishment that wishes to propagandize and impose its powerful influence upon the minds of each and every one of us, all in order to gain the political support to destroy those “evil” inhabitants of the other side … the enemy. How truly collectivist of them.

However this –like so many other wars and aggressions that have occurred before it– is being sold as a “humanitarian” effort; one to save the children, the mothers and fathers, and indeed the people of Syria.

“We’re only here to help, we mean you no harm”. Right?

There could be nothing further from the truth, and I am here to tell you why.

Of Bombs and Men

There simply does not exist any such thing as a “humanitarian war”, it’s a contradiction in terms. It’s much like saying “humanitarian murder” or “slavery freedom”. War is exactly what it says it is: nothing more than one state’s inhabitants (or military powers) killing the inhabitants that live within another state’s monopolistic region of power, or vice versa. You can tidy it up with soft language such as “conflict” or “engagement” as well as many other fanciful terms, but it all means the same thing: War!

Of what value is the reasoning of humanitarianism when innocent people are amongst the dead and killed by such “humanitarian” actions? I say none.

A bomb is an indiscriminate weapon of terror, a true “weapon of mass destruction”. There simply is no way to control who exactly it is that will be killed by such a weapon.

Sure, you may kill a “bad guy”, but you also may (and probably will) kill a lot of innocent people along with him. In fact, this is often the case, as the statistics of the US government’s drone war, and indeed all of its wars and aggressions over the past century, have proven all too poignantly.

To put things into perspective, those few that are supporting this military action in Syria are essentially saying this:

Person A: “They’re killing innocent people over there, we must do something”

Person B: “What do you suppose to do?”

Person A: “Kill innocent people over there”

Clearly, this is not a cogent argument in favor of humanitarianism (the supposed justification for US military intervention in this conflict).

The Gaseous State

The world is being told that Assad is using chemical weapons against his own people (sound familiar?), but to be sure, there has yet to have been any proof of this.

Yes, we do know that such weapons have been used (by whom?), but as Justin Raimondo has shown in his recent reporting, there is much ambiguity with regard to who has been using them. Further, the inspections by the UN had initially been curtailed, all in an effort to rush to another war without ample evidence of wrongdoing (or any evidence at all). Recently the inspectors were in the region, but were only there to establish that chemical weapons were released, not to assign blame, and the US is hinting that it will ignore the UN Security Council regardless.

The appeal by the President for Congressional support, I think, is far more of a political than a legal move. He’s essentially doing nothing more than spreading out the blame and putting on a show to convince the people that he’s consistent with US jurisprudence. He’s already indicated that it is his belief that he does not need to consult the Congress on these matters, so it only makes sense that his motives are entirely political in nature.

If they want war, then war is what they will have.

Indeed, many have been speculating that it is the US-supported “Rebels”, not Assad, who had a “gas”. In fact, some have even been suggesting that this is a “false flag” event; though I certainly cannot verify this any more than I can verify that it was Assad or the Rebels that used chemical weapons. But it is well-known that the US government has been supporting the Rebels (who are affiliated with the US government’s bogeyman “Al Qaeda”) both financially and militarily, that it is the US government that imposed the “red line” ultimatum on the use of chemical weapons about a year ago, and that due to this it is the US that has the most to gain by such a chemical attack by Assad’s government. Cui Bono?

While I do not discount any of the possibilities presented, I still cannot help but question whether any of these things are even relevant at all when considering the supposed particulars of the US government’s “war plans”. They are much more worrying.

Reign of Terror

So what is the US government’s strategic military play? Why, it’s to bomb the snot out of the Assad government’s supposed chemical weapons regiments (if we are to take their word on it). And of course, it will last “hours not days“, just as we’ve been told before in the case of Iraq.

This seems pretty straight forward in many people’s minds, until they think about the consequences of such a thing. If you bomb a chemical weapons facility or the Syrian military forces used in chemical weapons warfare, would that not release the same chemicals that were supposedly used by Assad’s government “against his own people”? Indeed it would!.

So we are left with a situation where the proposed military plan of the US government is to release into the air the same chemical toxins in which they are accusing the Assad government of perpetrating, but the US government is declaring it as a matter of foreign policy (they deny it, but it is unavoidable if what they say is true). Yet the justification of such an action is based upon a synonymous case. This justification is not much different than saying, “well, they’re killing each other, so why can’t we kill people, too?”. It seems that US “humanitarianism” has come full circle (which is to say it is no humanitarianism at all).

However, what if the US government’s military bombs these supposed chemical weapons regiments, and then no fallout happens at all? I would say that this is the smoking gun that this whole story was a claptrap fabrication to begin with.

“Hey, maybe the WMD’s are over there? Nope. How about over here? Nope.”

What If?

What if it is true what we are being told, that Assad really did use chemical weapons against his people? Does this give any justification for US involvement?

I say no. The only justification for violence is in the case of self-defense. In this case, Syria represents no danger to the United States, and especially not to the subjects that live within its (the US government’s) borders.

To interfere in Syria would certainly result in civilian deaths, there simply is no way of avoiding that. Since that is the case, then the US government would then have innocent blood on its hands, and there is simply no justification for that, because that is supposedly the very thing that it purports to avoid (or protect from).

Ah, but what of US interests? This is a question always bandied about by no other than those within the halls of power. I never hear any of those who are subject to the rule of US politicians and bureaucrats worrying much about interests abroad of which they have no real interest.

Instead, they’re far more worried about how to feed their family, have a good life, raise their children, and do what all of us wish to do in this life. You know, just like your regular, everyday Syrian is.

Whenever you hear the term “US interests”, that means only one thing: the interests of the ruling class, the elites. Trust me, you aren’t part of that club, nor will you be (unless you can become a sociopath in good speed).

The World Gone Insane, US Style

I don’t know if you have noticed, but the US and Israel have been pretty keen on getting into a war with Iran. Whether it be sanctions, or in the case of Israel, actual bombings and network viruses. So it comes as no surprise to me that Iran just so happens to have a mutual defense treaty with Syria.

I cannot say for sure, but if I were to guess, I’d say that this whole Syria fiasco is premeditated. That the entire purpose of striking Syria is to get Iran to make a move, that way the US government can say, “see, the Iranians are crazy, they attacked us in Damascus when all we were doing was trying to help the Syrian people”.

Syria is today essentially the breeding ground of WWIII, and it couldn’t have been better-calculated considering the state of the world’s central powers (“after all, WWII got us out of the depression”, they so ignorantly repeat, ad nauseam). The Western nations are essentially trying to live out a new world war based upon a false belief that the victor will be the US and it’s allies (just like in the old days), and can thus sustain its hegemony both politically and economically, and move toward a more centralized world state.

What they never counted on was the fact that their lies are like paper flies to the flame. Nobody is buying what they’re selling anymore. Much of the world has finally slipped the reins of the gatekeepers, information flows like hot butter, and all statements are now documented and shared for all to see. There is nowhere to hide in the digital world of information.

Of True Humanity

The true humanitarian position on any question of war is to reject it entirely: war is nothing more than the creation of the collective state, not the individual constituents thereof. US military involvement in Syria will do nothing more than complicate matters not just in Syria, but also the entire region. Indeed, the same politicians who speak so proudly of “democracy” have no problem imposing it upon others (through death and destruction), but when it comes to their own countrymen, it is but a whisper.

Today, only 9% of Americans support any intervention in Syria, and this number is low for good reason: Americans simply do not trust their government anymore. They’ve been through Iraq, they’ve seen Afghanistan, they saw what their political “leaders” did in Libya when Hillary Clinton declared, “we came, we saw, he died”, and every other boondoggle since 9/11. Americans know deep down in their hearts that their rulers are all “full of it”, that they’re only out for their own interests at the detriment to all, and all of this through the power of the state (their ruling nest).

America’s rulers don’t care about what they preach, they only care about themselves and their own.

The simple fact is that most regular folks know true humanity and most Americans are just regular folks. Even in this world of propaganda and false truths, people can see the inhumanity espoused by their statist overlords. Further, due to the lies and distortions spoken by their rulers over time, they’ve all seen time and time again how they’ve been played: the “seeing through the fog” is becoming all the more common in this world of free-flowing information.

Americans are finally finding their humanity, if only at the final hour. I can only hope that it is not too late.

* * *

Addendum:

While it is said that the only justification for violence is self-defense, this might lead one to question whether of not it is justified to come to another’s defense. Indeed it is justified, but one must understand the difference between doing so within a specific case and doing so within the realm of warfare. So in order to avoid confusions of what I meant when talking about the justifiable use of force, I must be more specific.

State warfare always kills uninvolved third-parties, those who have nothing directly to do with the decisions and actions of their respective state.

For instance, in the case of interpersonal conflict we might come across a case such as this: Person C witnesses a situation in which person A is aggressing toward person B (he’s holding a gun to his head, or something similar). It is entirely justified for person C to come to person B’s defense (but he is not obligated to do so). We can easily identify the aggressor (person A), the victim (person B), and the defender (person C).

However, in state warfare, these lines are blurred to the point of illogic. There is simply no way of identifying the particulars of each case, because warfare is indiscriminate. The actions of states are both collectivist and nationalist in nature, thus the individual is erased from the equation. There simply is no way to determine the merits of an individual case, instead we are left with rationalizations of why it is okay to kill innocents. It’s really horrible and twisted when you really give it some thought.

Obviously, one cannot claim a humanitarian position if their actions must ultimately result in the deaths of uninvolved third-parties (innocents). That’s an absurd position.

To take an opposing position is akin to saying that just because I live in the same apartment building as my neighbor, and my neighbor kills somebody’s sister, then the brother of that woman is entirely justified in leveling the entire apartment building (along with all of its contents and inhabitants).

But many actually up the ante, because their position ultimately says that ANYBODY that takes issue with my neighbor killing that women, they (anybody) also now have justification to bomb my apartment building (along with all of its contents and inhabitants).

Advertisements

Prediction

September 7, 2012

Typically I am not one to make predictions about the future, because the future is uncertain and my name isn’t ‘Joestradamus’. However, today I have a wild hair in my ass and I am feeling like I have the answer. Now, keep in mind that I absolutely know that I may be wrong and that I am full of shit, but making predictions is fun (especially when they turn out to be correct). So here goes …

My prediction is that Mitt Romney will be the next president of the United States.

Yeah, yeah. I know. It seems like a long shot, but hear me out.

First, Romney is probably the least conservative out of those who ran for the Republican ticket, yet he got the nomination. I haven’t even seen a single button, sticker, yard sign, or anything else with Mitt Romney’s name on it (at least not out in public), yet he is the guy that got the nomination. He’s a mormon, a religion that most of the religious right despises, yet he got the nomination. The guy’s personality is as exciting as an NPR piece, yet he got the nomination. He’s the last choice of just about any Republican that I’ve talked to, yet he got the nomination.

The next reason is pretty straight forward, he has the most support from Wall Street. Don’t get me wrong, Obama is a Wall Street puppet, too; but it is clear that Mitt Romney is certainly Goldman Sachs’s golden boy. All of Romney’s top donors are banks, and it is my opinion that it is the banks that run most of Congress and the Presidency, because well, they’ve got the money. Whatever the banks say, goes. This should be clear to anybody that wasn’t living under a rock the past 4 years.

The last thing that makes me think that Romney is going to win has to do with foreign policy, but this is going to take a little explanation. As most anybody knows, the Israeli lobby has a firm grip on just about every Washington politician’s balls. For the most part, you can’t get elected or stay in office without jumping through hoops for AIPAC, stating your unwavering support for Israel, and possibly even donning a yamulke and heading to Israel to kiss the wailing wall. And if you’ve been paying attention since Bush’s second term, Israel really wants a war with Iran. The thing is, Israel isn’t willing to engage in that war on her own, instead she wants the US to do it for her. It’s essentially Iraq all over again.

Thus far Obama has made it pretty clear that he’s not going to just start bombing the shit out of Iran. I’m pretty sure that he’ll murder Iranians if he has to– after all, he’s certainly no problem murdering other people in that region– but he’s clearly been hesitant to do so thus far. It’s a hard sell after Iraq and 10 years of war in A-stan. For this he is seen as “abandoning Israel”. Romney, on the other hand, has been doing his war-hawking routine and has pretty much made it clear that he’d bomb Iran without a problem. Of course, Romney has done plenty to show his faithfulness to Israel, including the whole yamulke-wailing wall routine.

So, that’s my prediction. I think Romney has the 3 most important groups behind him (political establishment, bankers, Israel), and that is all that matters under our current system. Obviously, I don’t think that the people have much say in such matters, just enough to make them think that they have a voice. I could be wrong, but that is how I see it right now.

Note: If Obama wages war against Iran before the elections, then he is a shoo-in.

Statists Gonna State

September 5, 2012

(Thanks to the LRC blog)

Democracy is a Sham!

September 1, 2012

I’m a little late in posting this, but this is a video from the GOP convention showing a close view of the teleprompter messages being relayed to the speakers. At this particular moment they are discussing a change in the rules that would ultimately disenfranchise Ron Paul delegates. What happens is that John Boehner puts it up to an “aye/Nay” vote. Other than the voice that is really close the the recording device, it appeared to me as if the “aye” votes were pretty even with the “nay” votes, but Boehner still gave it to the ‘ayes’. What is even more shocking is that this result was already typed into the teleprompter, which means that the result was already decided before the vote, and the vote was pointless.

Here’s the video. The point of interest begins at 1:48.

Why I Will Never Vote

August 26, 2012

Ok, so I may vote on what to have for dinner or something along those lines. What I mean here is that I will never vote in the political sense.

Most people who don’t vote will often give such reasons for their decision as “it is a waste of time”. “my voice won’t be heard”, “it legitimizes the state”, etc. While all of these are certainly true, that is not the reason that I do not vote. The reason that I do not vote is that by engaging in the act of voting you’re explicitly attempting to rule over your fellow man, and in almost all cases it is done against their will and is promulgated by violence. To put a twist on an old Mises quote, voters are merely disguised dictators. Tyrants!

Most people don’t seem to have a problem with that. Well, I do. I would never want to do that to you.

Lew Rockwell Talks with Mike Adams

July 14, 2012

This is probably one of Lew’s better interviews. Take a listen.