The Cult of Helen Thomas

Helen Thomas is worm food and finally making a contribution (as fertilizer) though her infamous words live on. Recall how she said that "congress, the White House, and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion. They put their money where there mouth is…We're being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.""

Thomas is reviled by decent opinion but she gained a following whose delusions were matched only their fanaticism for Thomas. Anti-Israel bigots insist that "critics of Israel" are 'tarred' or 'smeared' as anti-Semites which amounts to arguing that critics of Israel can never be anti-Semitic. There are few genuine examples of legitimate criticism of Israel being tarred as Jew hated. Desperate regurgitation of the Livingstone formulation is usually a confirmation of anti-Semitism.

She has been hailed as a "pioneer" so much that her hagiography has become its own tall tale.  Apologists for Helen Thomas the stank engine argue that her career renders any criticism of her moot; by that reasoning Thomas Lindbergh is absolved by his impressive aviation career. Others defend her by drawing attention to her criticism of the American government by that reasoning any neo-ratzi would be exonerated since they all loath old glory. Such defenses betray a leftist bias that has caused 'anti-imperialists' to ally with any vile vermin vociferating about the USA and Israel.

The mythologization of Thomas as a heroic trailblazing Joan of Arc burned by false accusations of anti-Semitism reflects extremist hubris. Acolytes of dead fringe causes see themselves as heroes fighting for utopia with every lie drenched article. Hero worship is central in extremism: an ideology is defined by its icons take them away and the followers have nothing. Extremist are deeply narcissistic thus if they view themselves as heroes above criticism the same holds true for people they admire. Helen Thomas veneration is more than a spectacle in honor of a twisted anti-Semite; it is an insight into the extremist mentality.

The hall of shameful tweets:

The Politics Behind Russian Anti-Gay Laws

The democratic world has been stunned at how Putin has all but outlawed homosexuality while Russian intelligence agencies are going back to typewriters: Putin has brought Terry Gilliam's Brazil to life. Very dieselpunk, no? Kremlin apologists are in an uncomfortable position that would make a contortionist wince in sympathy. Many people have voiced obvious ethical objections to Putin's demonstration of what talk of "protecting children" leads to. Few have paid attention to the politics behind Russia's latest slide into backwardness.

 It strengthens Putin's Christian persona and the power of the Orthodoxy, which always been a state tool, in Russian society. The president seems to crave the prestige and power of the USSR while having a system that draws on Tsarism. As Jason Matthews wrote in Red Sparrow, modern Russia "is insecure, wants to be respected, to be feared like the old Soviet Union. They need recognition, and they hate their second-tier status in the superpower stakes. That's why Putin's putting together USSR 2.0, and no one is going to stand in his way.....the second Cold War is all about the resurgent Russian Empire..."

Russian society in any incarnation has usually required a scapegoat. If you're Stalin or the Tsar you cannot run one of the worst states in human history without something to misdirect popular anger away from you. Putin's popularity is decreasing and the economy is so awful that even state media has reported that the RF is set to become the "next Greece." Putin's bond villain stunts (like the world) are not enough he needs a scapegoat.

 Normally that role has fallen to Jews, since few if any remain in Russia that is no longer an option. Anti-Semitism has influenced other Russian bigotries;  the justification that homosexuals are monsters who prey on children resembles the blood libel. Russian lawmaker  Vitaly Milonov said critics of anti-gay laws are "members of the gay lobby" the most fabulous international conspiracy!

Anti-Chechen racism is powerful in most political camps which is deeply influenced by pan-Slavic nationalism, recall Nalavy's call of "Russia for Russians." Its also useless to Putin since it threatens his interests in the Caucasus, anti-Chechen nationalists want completely out of the region hence calls to "stop feeding the Caucasus" which would be disastrous for Putin.

Ethnic nationalism in general is also off limits. He fears stoking separatism and conflict since the two Chechen wars ravaged Russia which is why he promotes phoney prattle about "civic patriotism."  He prefers to promote Eurasianism since it has a place for non-Russians and anti-Western chauvinism; an ideal balance for him. The fact that it helps with foreign policy in central Asia certainly doesn't sting.

Therefore homosexuals are an ideal scapegoat. There is no chance that homophobia can inflame conflict, destabilize the Caucasus or harm his interests. Anti-LGBT prejudice is widespread and festering in Russia, exacerbating and rousing hysteria distracts public opinion away from Putin's regime; there is no downside in it for Putin. Bayard Rustin nailed it when he wrote that "the barometer for judging the character of people in regard to human rights is now those who consider themselves Gay, homosexual, Lesbian."

Shameful Salon Stupidity

The Islamist project is dying. The MB can take comfort that while their own people have rejected them they enjoy support from western liberals whom the brotherhood would love to gut in public. Salon published an article that should live in infamy titled "They still hate us: No one wants to be America, anymore." Sinking ships stick together which makes salon and Egyptian MB thugs a fail armada, you won't find treasure aboard those garbage stows.

The author Patrick Smith opens with the words "forget the standard lunacy that emerging nations "hate our freedoms." They just don't want to be Westernized." No one has ever claimed to that emerging countries "hate our" liberties that was used solely to describe the motives of 911 attackers. Smith has defined the non-western world as synonymous with al-qaeda, something so rancid that it speaks for itself.

Smith does not define 'westernization' or what 'western' is is any sense. Those words have been very arbitrary for most of history western European Greece was defined as outside the 'west' during its Byzantine period because of religion. We think of the Balkans as outside the west despite that they're only a short distance from Italy. Austria is distinctly eastern yet we see as western because it was under NATO's umbrella instead of falling prey to Soviet enslavement. Pol Pat does not provide any evidence to support his claim that 'they' don't want to westernized, whatever that means.

Anyone with an internet connection has spent the 21st century's dawn shuddering through articles whining about 'othering' the 'clash of civilizations.' Yet Smith defines the world as 'west' and the rest, us and 'them' which might as well separate species. He frames the world as two hermetically sealed monoliths without individualism and cultural transmission, what a dehumanizing and false world view which leads him to defend the Islamist project instead of standing with the democrats of emerging countries. The POV is made even worse by salon's miserable design: pop ups leap out like genital wagging exhibitionists,  two spots beg for facebook likes. I miss meatspace harassment, apparently dignity is an imperialist hegemonic construct.

Pat informs us that MENA "discord matters to all of us." Of course discord is important as the former ruler of equestria oh wait not that discord. He argues that "what we witness in the Middle East now is going to tell us a lot about what kind of century we have on our hands." To be sure much can be learned but to claim that world shaping events are taking place in the middle east is hyperbole. The early 20th century featured the Arab revolts which certainly didn't shape the rest of the world. Indigenous dictatorship replaced Ottoman rule without shaping that harsh century unless you count Valentino flicks.

He writes that "becoming modern is the project of our time. And too few of us are ready to accept it as such." No evidence therefore its null and void.

Smith asks readers if they "ever wondered why so many non-Western people harbor such visceral dislike of Western nations, and almost always the United States more than any other? The standard answer, never more clearly articulated than after the Sept. 11 attacks, is that these people envy us. “They hate our freedoms,” George W. Bush advised. " Smith again synomyizes "emerging nations" with Al-Qaeda! No one has claimed that Zimbabweans or Karen people hate us for our freedoms, Bush only use those words to describe people who cited American tolerance for homosexuality, gambling and secularism as reasons to kill 3,000 people.

He describes those "utterances such as these are versions of what the scholars used to call “modernization theory,” an ideological swamp it is best not to wade far into." Translation: 'I'm not going to offer evidence or actual definitions thats for credible people.' He argues that "the thesis is that to modernize one must Westernize" certainly countries should adopt western models that doesn't mean that culture has to be abandoned. Of course in diatribes like Smith's screed culture is a synonym for race.

Smith writes that "modernization theory was a Cold War construct, and it held for a time. Postwar Japan is a noted example, which is why Japan today is so wrenchingly confused as to what it is and what it is supposed to do. Some of Europe’s former colonies, achieving independence in the Cold War decades, tried it on, too — usually to no brilliant result." He only proved his historical illiteracy Japan did not achieve its current status: its democracy, womens rights and other such things were bestowed on it by the American presence not any Japanese effort.

Pat writes that his "candidate for the greatest distinction of our time is that people will be able to become modern while keeping their own cultures, traditions, histories, values and so on." No one has argued that any peoples must give those things as evidenced by his example of Japan. The western powers have a distinctly cultural relativist outlook. Obama accepted Morsi and the MB as the Eygptian people's rightful representative apart from the obvious ethical problems it can have realpolitik consequences since such policies have made Obama more hated than Bush in Egypt.

Smith finishes his one man show of Mel Brooks' history of the world and launches into Muslim brotherhood apologetics. Pat rewrites history by arguing that the Egyptian "people now embrace the army because it removed from office a properly elected president who happens to be Islamic." The people removed the president, protesters numbers dwarfed those who elected him making it an act of popular impeachment and rendering any talk of ousted a "properly elected" prez majoritan imbecility. Winning elections is not enough one must also govern democratically and Morsi was not doing that. He bemoans that the new cabinet does not have a single Islamist in it!

Pat previously asked people if they understand anti-Western hatred after showing a photo of Egyptians burning the American flag. Smith is actually ignorant of the hatred he writes about most anti-American protesters in Egypt have been to demonstrate against Obama's support for Morsi's government. Smith shouldn't feel too embarrassed though its not the first the time self loathing westerners projected their own views onto Egyptians protesting against Islamism.

Smith further discredits himself by entertaining "the concept of Islamic democracy" there is no such thing since only secularism can provide the equality required to be a democracy. He apparently thinks that populist majoritans movements who use the ballot box in attempts to destroy the possibility of an open society are democratic movements, westernization is vital for certain westerners. In Turkey talk of "moderate" Muslim democracy has given Turks a government that blames protests on Jewish conspiracies, telekinesis and halal medicines that use only Turkish plasma.

He praises the "Chinese have started down the road, Communist Party rule notwithstanding" the PRC is one of the worst tyrannies ever to exist, with three to five million in its Laogai camps it stands out as one of history's greatest slave states. None of that bothers Pat unlike Indians "caving to the West’s neoliberal enticements" he seems to think that the PRC is benign compared to 'neoliberalism' a fair example of the deranged mania over the spectacle of opposition to 'neoliberalism.' He lauds Latin Americans for throwing off "the long-borne yoke and the model and the influence of the norteamericanos." Which is absurd since those states play hegemonic games with each other, Cuban influence in Venezuela as been described as 'colonization.' He rambles on about 'western dominance' and attributing Filipino ills solely to American misdeeds in the 19th century without mention of Axis Japan's occupation!

Next he describes how he met an Iranian woman who was "no friend of the clerics" but "had no impulse to dump over the side all that had happened in post-Shah Iran." Smith uses language to trivialize and dismiss Khomeinist atrocities, he intends for his audience to share his view that 20,000 to 40,000 murdered progressives and 100,000 Kurds butchered in a holy war were just 'things' though their killers saw them as 'things,' Criticism of that is presented as "dumping" as if people shouldn't complain and instead focus on the real monsters: people who disagree with Pat Smith.

According to him the woman said that " Iran was simply becoming Iran, she told me, and this would take a long time. And then something memorable: “We want to be modern, but we want to be modern Iranians.”" What the dickens does that mean? How can something take a long time to change into something that it already is? She seems to be making a cultural relativist defense but that doesn't work for the Iranian question. Since 1979 those said clerics mentioned in passing have sought to replace Iran's culture with the views of a infant raping fraud. Certainly Iranians can be modern and practice their culture which the state has spent decades repressing, though we both know that that isn't Smith's point don't we dear reader?

He becomes even more incomprehensible by writing that that nameless accessory gave him "the key to much that has happened in the many years since we met. She showed me the river that runs beneath our world and time." What the fudge does that even mean? It sounds like Paulo Coelho fanfiction written after huffing ketamine laced glue. Pat's depravity is very clearly, if unintentionally, communicated. He visited a great land under a dictatorship worse than Pinochet or Salazar and he manages to make it all about him and not actual victims or democrats. A woman is reduced to a character like the Black guy from the Green Mile; a magic Persian who exists to pop up and spout a few words o' wisdom to Smith: a legend in his own mind.

Its appropriate the Smith wrote an article in defense of an evil project without offering any evidence; the very thing fanaticism rejects with bestial fury. In any legitimate outlet Pat's rant would be a humiliating blow to its content but for salon something so vile is typical. This is the outlet that defended publication of a 911 twoof article by arguing that they missed because they're too incompetent to actually edit their own paper but they know how other people, Egyptians especially, should live their lives.

Creationism Apologia in the Guardian

Andrew Brown summarizes the the topic: "Virginia Heffernan, has just outed herself as a creationist. As she is currently earning a living writing on technology for Yahoo! News, this is a brave thing to do and has been greeted with obloquy, bemusement, and patronising explanations about the difference between facts and stories." Expressing imbecilic views is not bravery by any definition, how many land mines have homeopaths dismantled lately? Brown and most of the CIF writers would love to define bravery as being ignorant and deluded by that standard most guardian contributors are superheroes.

Brown finds the subject "fascinating, but there are lots of things that fascinate me, from fly fishing to philosophy, which I don't expect the rest of the world to take an interest in." While he admits that Virginia is wrong he tries to cast her in the best light possible: that she's brave or its just matter of interests. A bit like telling a witch doctor trying to cure a headache with human sacrifice that we can all agree to disagree.

 He tells readers if they "want to know why an educated American might decide evolution is untrue, spend some time at the website Why evolution is true, run by the Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne. The science there is great, but the tone of voice is something else: hectoring arrogant mansplaining with sputtering outbursts of extraordinary viciousness. If you don't much care whether the science is true, this would convince you that there must be something wrong with it." I would be exceptionally polite if I were to describe the non-argument that believing in mythology over science is okay because of a snarky website as something other than moronic even by CIF standards. Conclusions are made based on facts and reasoning, not on whether or not you care for someone's tone: Brown does not seem to understand logic and the scientific method.

Brown cannot understand "why anyone should care about the truth of evolutionary theory." If someone cannot understand why someone should care about the truth of the origins' of life they are beyond all hope and forfeited any right to be treated as something other than an amusement. Andy tries to defend himself by arguing that " point this out goes against our self-image, and our belief that we ought to be generally curious about the world. But even if it's granted that we ought to be omnivorously curious..." An interest in the origins of your own species is not curiosity about everything; its an interest in the fundamentals of reality.

He complains that the "argument has been framed is that it is one of facts versus stories" which is the simple truth. Apparently "both sides are missing an important point here. In popular culture, arguments about evolution are not clashes of facts against stories." I don't see a point in stating the obvious about that, a non-argument that idiotic speaks for itself. The Guardian publishes a dullard who thinks that evolution is a story!

Brown writes that the "great scientist is often one who can design wonderful experiments, rather than the drone who carries them out." A man who thinks evolution is a tale is in no position to say who is a great scientist and who is not. The drone part is libelous slander of countless brilliant people who strive to advance our species while the Guardian promotes everything that holds us back: prejudice, theocracy and scientific illiteracy.

He whines that people think the "the scientific story is better, more wonderful, more uplifting, and so on, than all the others" which he dismisses as "all balls" which only proves that is ignorance is as unfathomable as a bottomless pit. What evidence does he provide for dismissing science as a "story?" None he just doesn't like it as he asks "does any adult really want to believe in a meaningless universe which is given sense only by our own heroic efforts?" That only affirms that he's a manchild who wants everything to have 'meaning' whatever that is.

Andy Lauds Virginia for  wanting "stories where people find hope and courage in the events of the world around them, and she finds them in religion, not in science." Isaac Asimov wrote a condemnation of the anti-intellectualism championed by Brown and the Guardian. He said that anti-intellectualism "has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

Malala Yousafzai and the Taliban Fan's Burden

Extremism thrives and festers in imagined victimhood which is why post-colonial rhetoric has become a fertile ground for depravity.  The fanatic must believe that he can do no wrong and that the world owes him everything that makes post-colonial lore ideal. Under that mindset all evil flows from the democratic world and any atrocity can be justified as resistance to 'imperialism.' Post-colonial fanaticism is similar to fascist Japanese ideology which justified atrocities as heroic resistance to colonialism and hatred of all things western.

Assed Baig's imbecilic article about Malala is a product of that mindset,which has already provoked excellent rebuttals like this one.  Now he gets to work picking on a child who survive a taliban bullet to the head, because it all has to be about him and he also gets to pretend its a real girl he's beating up. He belongs to the SWP rape cult, Galloway's Respect party and UAF which should actually be named 'unite with fascism' since the Woolrich beheader was a member. He is a Pakistani Islamist chauvnist who pollutes outlets with his semi-literate self pitying ravings about how oppressed he is.

Assed insists that there is "no justifying the brutal actions of the Taliban or the denial of the universal right to education" the entire article is designed to divert attention away from taliban atrocities which affirms sympathy for them. Imagine if an Indian soldier shot a Kashmiri schoolgirl in the head, would Baig take to the Huffington post to ask us to consider Indian suicide bombing victims? Would he write an article asking why various Muslims recently started supporting Burmese Muslims after ignoring junta persecution of Buddhists? Of course not.

Baig decries "a story of a native girl being saved by the white man.....The story of an innocent brown child that was shot by savages for demanding an education and along comes the knight in shining armour to save her." The chief reason why Malala was 'saved' by the UK was that her own government refused to support her. Pro-taliban Imran Khan couldn't even bring himself to condemn the shooting, instead of mentioning that Baig whines that the UK treating a non-White foreign as being equal to a White British citizen is somehow "racist."

What would Baig have preferred? The only conclusion is that he would like it if she had been left for dead. He has more objection to the skin color of her doctors than her shooting; the man's found a way to eclipse Frantz Fanon's amorality.

He argues that the "actions of the West, the bombings, the occupations the wars" are being "justified" by Malala but offers no evidence and therefore his non-argument can and should be dismissed. Similar rants were advanced by wikileaks and other assorted cretins dismissing Malala by arguing that she is being 'exploited' to 'justify' war. Can anyone name a single NATO officer who has even mentioned her? I can't. Anyone trying to justify NATO actions in the region already has an almost endless series of taliban bloodbaths to work with.

He potrays her as a tool, an agent being used by shadowy plotters in smoke choked rooms. The very mindset behind Malala conspiracy theories which have become excessively popular in Pakistan. Such paranoia also suggests that he believes that females are incapable of thinking for themselves.

Post-colonial rhetoric is amusing since it reduces the world into an all powerful west and vulnerable non-westerners who have no agency or ability. The exact same world view colonial empires wanted to created is promoted as fact by those who aspire to Fannon's level. The viewpoint that Beig promotes is a replication of colonial ideology just as regimes like Zimbabwe have replicated colonial conditions like forced labor regimes.

He complains about "the west" but ignores Pakistani actions; the ISI created the taliban in 1994. Through the taliban Pakistan colonized Afghanistan enslaving Afghans and committing genocide against the Hazaras. Baig bemoans bombing but does not mention Pakistani carpet bombing in FATA which shares responsibility with the taliban for the most civilian deaths. Even Pakistan's own chief air marshal has admitted to dropping thousands which dwarf drones strikes, the Pakistani regime is now more honest than its apologists.

Baig writes that "the truth is that there are hundreds and thousands of other Malalas" a complete strawman since no one said that she was unique. He continues: "they come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan" that is true but not in a way complimentary to his agenda as the vast majority of civilians have been killed by NATO's enemies. Imagine how many promising students died in the Yazidi car bombings or in massacres of Quetta Hazaras (a people who place great importance on education) with tacit Pakistani approval. The Pakistani army had a tactic of setting fire to womens' schools and then machine gunning the students as they fled flames. Perhaps we can expect another HP article praising the Pakistani army for giving those native informants what they deserved.

He complains that people have forgotten "about" victims yet Assed has conveniently forgotten Bengladesh, Afghanistan and Balochistan. To be sure though victims of the west's enemies have been ignored; footage of GI relieving himself on taliban carrion sparked outrage while an incident where a taliban fighter cut off a woman's breast and forced another woman received little cover. Baig complains that "those as Western journalists and politicians fall over themselves to appease their white-middle class guilt also known as the white man's burden." Blanket statements about 'guilt' and general psychology of millions proves nothing though Baig could profit greatly from therapy.

The 'white man's burden' was a sarcastic term coined by Kipling, in reality colonialism is and was about profit not race. Most Italian colonies were in Europe, the Tsars shared skin pigment with their colonial subjects. Begg's native land confirms that colonialism is colorblind; Pakistan has raped and subjugated most of its neighboring peoples. Nial Fergusson's British rajj apologetics become easier everyday thanks to Pakistan.

Assed blames the "destabalisation (sic) of the region" on the "Western occupation of Afghanistan" in reality NATO only entered Afghanistan with permission from its UN recognized leadership. The only entity to blame for Afghanistan's ills than the taliban would be Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto became known as the "mother of the taliban" Malala decided to hear Bhutto's hijab; a hideous irony. The destabilization of the region are a product of Pakistan's actions and imperial lust for Kashmir; the country is literally tearing itself apart with dreams of empire.

He reveals what really angers him the "current narrative continues the demonization of the non-white Muslim man" meaning that his real gripe is that his fellow Islamists now look even worse, no wonder why he's mad that the UK saved her life. Apparently people have painted the non-White Muslim man "as a savage, someone beyond negotiating with, beyond engaging with, the only way to deal with this kind of savage is to wage war, occupy and use drones against them." Clearly he's referring to the taliban which again confirms his sympathy for them, by making the "Muslim man" synonymous with the taliban it is Begg who is the genuine bigot. He repeats the argument that NATO is using Malala as a justification which has no supporting evidence.

The article becomes more depraved as it mercifully comes to an end. Assed argues that westerners are congratulating "themselves for something that they have caused." As I already established the only cause other than the taliban is its mother Pakistan. He opened with claims that taliban actions cannot be "justified" yet his sentence about "something they have caused" does just that. Justification isn't simply saying that "she or he deserved it" the goal is to absolve ethical responsibility for an action.  The word justify derives from a religious term "to free (a human) of the guilt and penalty attached to grievous sin" its also defined as "to declare free of blame; absolve."  If the west "caused" Malala's shooting instead of the taliban as Baig despicably argues then the taliban are justified.

Assed continues to defend and attempt to justify the taliban. He argues that "the West has killed more girls than the Taliban have. The West has denied more girls an education via their missiles than the Taliban has by their bullets." Easily accessible civilian casualty figures proves that Baig is lying, the the taliban have killed the greatest sum of innocents from both genders.

After revealing that his article was written in defense of the taliban Baig grandoisely claims that the "West has done more against education around the world than extremists could ever dream of." The thought that Pakistan's crumbling education system  is all the fault of Switzerland or Sweden is a hilarious sweeping claim without evidence which again must dismissed especially since India's successful education system is a product of British rule. As proven by Assed himself a lack of education can often be blamed on considerable personal ignorance not an entire civilization.

To further dismiss diabolization of the west we need to only compare Baig to Asia Bibi. Assed leaves a very comfortable life in the UK where he is free to vilify Britain. Asia Bibi as a member of Pakistan's christian minority lead degrading life and faces lynching for something she might have said about Islam. The conclusion is obvious.

Extremism and identity politics exist for the purpose self-glorification. As a Treme character said about identity studies "lets all bask in the glory of me!" Assed Baig attempted to transform a story about a girl shot by the taliban into a story all about him and his group. By publishing bestial misogyny as progressive commentary the Huffington Post was proven that it is an dumping ground for fringe fanaticism and inane celebrity gossip.

Al-Jazeera's Genocidal Anti-Semitism

Out of all the anti-Western outlets Al-Jazeera is the most insidious and clever. While outfits like Russia Today churn out nakedly insane content  including 911 denial as an official stance AJ has produced relatively decent content. Al-Jazeera has been smart enough to temper its extremism and create a moderate guise which has allowed it to achieve acclaim and credibility. The far-left and naive liberals love the broadcasting outfit because of its opposition to American policy, Israel and widespread view that any western media must be biased propaganda, a view steeped in conspiracism and anti-Semitic fantasies of Jewish media control.

The mask continually slips. The outlet publishes anti-Semitic frauds like Joseph Massad who produced an article so vile that it received near universal condemnation. Pundits are finally noticing that AJ airs and glorifies Yusuf Al-Qaradawi a man who praises the third reich and the Shoah.

Even supporters like Sultan Al Qassemi who delusionally described it as a "voice of Arab freedom" have condemned the broadcaster as a Muslim brotherhood "shill." Qassemi wrote that the outlet's status as Muslim brotherhood propagandists " is now widely accepted as fact. " Al-Jazeera aired the Exile series which featured "horrific depictions of long-bearded and hook-nosed rabbis extracting blood from the corpses of lifeless Arab children." Exile was also aired by Hezbollah's outlet Al-Manar.

The Khaybar tv series is anti-Semitic incitement on a mass scale, the very word 'Khaybar' is a genocidal war cry calling for massacre and enslavement of Jews. According Rabbi Kenneth Cohen the series is "crude and offensive incitement" that "defies journalistic and media standards observed elsewhere." Jews use technology to improve humanity while their enemies use it to further backwards trash.

Naturally Al-Jazeera praised and endorsed the series. Al-Jazeera describes the Khaybar conquest as "historic moment milestone in the dawn of Islam" they condemn themselves by admitting that they consider a massacre of Jews to be a milestone of their culture's history. The article lauds the "fight against the Jews" and vilifies Jews for "their hostility to Islamic Call and weaving plots."

The articles argues that "deals with the Jewish community, like any other society in which there is both good and evil, so you will find scenes with the finest Jewish personalities and others that are sinister who allied with the hypocrites who are in Yathrib..." Al-Jazeera and the semi-literate filmmakers define a 'good Jew' as one who meekly accepts non-Jewish domination and collaborates with his or her people's oppressor. They define an evil Jew as one who does not accept subjugation and therefore deserves death.

Any defense fails as the director admitted that "the goal of the series is to expose the naked truth about the Jews and stress that they cannot be trusted." Ahmad 'Abd Al-Halim said that "I play one of the Jewish characters, who demonstrates the behavior of the Jewish human being. All he thinks about is accumulating money."

The article horrifically states that the series "illustrates the objective reasons which caused Muslims to eliminate the Jews of Khaybar, which objectively can be applied to what is happening now in the Arab arena with regard to the Palestinian issue and other problems experienced by the Arab nation." Al-Jazeera openly supports genocide past and present. They see Judeocide in the past as noble and hope for Israelis to be exterminated in a second Shoah. The admission that Khaybar was made to advance the cause of another Holocaust which Al-Jazeera fully wants to come about should and probably won't trouble the broadcasting outlet's devotees.

Al-Jazeera America must be boycotted. Apologists might cry free speech which would be amusing since AJ publishes material calling for America to eradicate free speech. Even if we pretend that a  right enjoyed by American citizens somehow extend to a distant micro-autocracy devoid of basic free speech the invasion of American airwaves by foreigners promoting backwards hatred must be struck down.

Greenwald Threatens to Bring America to its Knees

“Snowden has enough information to cause harm to the U.S.A. government in a single minute than any other person has ever had. The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare.”

Apparently his plan to steal all the world's oxygen from his secret base in Brazil didn't work out.

Stephen Walt's Historical Illiteracy

People who achieve moral authority will be mercilessly exploited by extremists. Noah Feldman humiliated himself by comparing the rabidly anti-Semitic Rachid Ghannouchi  to Nelson Mandela! People who abuse history rarely offer an evidence to support arguments like suggesting that a demagogue of the week is just like Marty Luther King, Gandhi or any other secular saints that liberal arts majors fantasize about having dinner with.

Stephen Walt's execrable article in foreign policy magazine continues the imbecilic tradition of abusing historical figures for cheap points. Walt's claim to fame is his co-author credit on the notorious anti-Semitic text the 'Israel lobby.' Walt and his co-author believe that Israel controls the USA, so thats why Kissinger sided with Arab enemies of the Jewish state and why America supplies Israel's enemies like Saudi Arabia with cruise missiles.  Stephen's FP blog has a photo of himself staring intensely as if he's trying to unlock his telekinetic powers and take on the Israelis once and for all as Khaybar-man! Walt's blog includes support for neo-nazi Gilad Atzmon who thinks that the blood libel is historical fact.

Walt begins by explaining that he reads the declaration of independence every July fourth, which does not reflect well on his reading comprehension. He has the honesty to admit that the question of  "what would the founding fathers think about Snowden" is "absurd" the only time I have ever agreed with him. Its curious for Walt to invoke the founders since his ideological camp usually vilifies them all slaveholding evil white men, he's draping himself in patriotism to justify the actions of a man who has damaged American interests more than Phil Agee.

Stephen betrays his ignorance by treating 'the founders' as a monolithic unit. Many hated each other and held widely varying visions: the debate between federalists and anti-federalists was intensely fierce and foreshadowed the civil war. If Walt's non-arguments were confirmed via 30st century anti-death tech or dark sorcery that still wouldn't make any hypothetical pro-Snowden founder correct. Many were wrong about a number of things, recall Jefferson's cultish support for the French support.  Even men who were friends like Jefferson and Adams were politically at odds. Still its adorable that Walt's vision of the founders seems to be derived from a few episodes of Liberty's Kids (he must love the show's rap intro) and skimming Johnny Tremain.

"Found fathers hey! Founding fathers ho!  Founding fathers!  Founding fathers! Go! Go! Go!"

Stephen writes that "they could hardly have imagined something like the Internet, or even the telephone" no steampunk founding fathers?! Damn it! Though pamphleteers were the bloggers of their time, similarly its hard to read Roman graffiti and not think of facebook.

Walt states that the "Founding Fathers repeatedly warned about the dangers of standing armies, which they rightly understood to be a perennial threat to liberty." Stephen repeats his ignorant mistake of treating the founders as a cohesive group, federalists wanted standing armies.  The fact that a number of the founders believed that does not make the view that an army is a threat to liberty correct. Aside from how the American military has never threatened our liberty the Swiss have a military that spans centuries, a history that has never threatened its democracy. There are many cases where liberty was secured through military coups: Portuguese carnation revolution would not have occurred without the army's actions.

Stephen says that the "Founders also gave Americans the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because they understood that defending individual privacy against the grasp of government authority is an essential human right as well as an important safeguard of freedom." Doesn't that sound like an imitation of a fifth grade civics paper written by some tyke in the 4h? The supreme court determined in Smith vs. Maryland that metadata is not protected by the fourth. If mister Walt loves these United States of America then he should familiarize himself with its laws.

He argues that "large and well-funded government bureaucracies have a powerful tendency to expand, to hide their activities behind walls of secrecy, and to depend on a cowed and co-opted populace to look the other way. " A slate journalist made the convincing case that bureaucracy has continually curbed and corrected flaws in the American system. Is Stephen revealing his inner small government right winger side? The Ron Paulestinians and other assorted vermin are his allies whether he is aware of it or not.

To answer Walt's question the FFs would not have been BFFs with Eddie Snowden. They have a hatred of treason and broadly defined treason as "levying war against (the USA), or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Greenwald defended Snowden by arguing that he leaked materials to ingratiate himself with the Chinese, he helped the PRC patch the great firewall of China. Many founders also despised any imagined treason as evidenced by the alien and sedition acts.

Another reason why the founders would have reviled Snowden would be the countries he has fled to: Russia, China and others. We look down on the 18th century but the truth is that our own time has eclipsed 18th century inhumanity and modern regimes are worse than the founders' enemies. They reviled European monarchies, most of those kingdoms never came close to the depravities of modern American adversaries. Imagine the horror with which they would react to a monstrosity like the PRC and someone like Snowden who fled to its blackened shameful shores.

 We can further banish thoughts that various founders would rally to Snowden's stained banner with fervor by looking at how the whiskey revolt was crushed which looks trivial compared to the damage inflicted by saint Eddie. Stephen suspects that "Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the rest of those revolutionaries might have understood." That is not an argument and has all the substance of suggesting that unicorn frolic on a planet in the andromeda galaxy and therefore must be dismissed.

Matthew Harwood Disgraces Himself

Mat Harwood's article is imbecilic from the start take the headline: "phony fear of US jihadis obscures the real threat of far-right terror." How are jihadis not part of the far-right? He wrote that on day one of the Boston Bombing trial; the article borders on denial and qualifies as tacit support for Tsarnaev.

Harwood caricatures the USA as anti-Muslim, Raquel Saraswati detailed how  America is more tolerant of Islam than most western states. Nearly seventy percent of the American population oppose hijab bans; America is more tolerant of Muslims than Turkey. Matthew argues that "American law enforcement" considers Muslims to be threat, a sweeping claim without evidence. While its true New York city cops have spied on Muslims arguing that such operations are standard police policy is as fallacious as arguing that all police are cannibals because of a certain NYPD officer.

Matthew proclaims that  people would be "outraged" if "such tactics been used against Christians after the Oklahoma City bombing"" McVeigh was not a Christian. Harwood insists that we should fear militia types yet his ignorant of the basic facts about them. He complains that the FBI gathered "intelligence at mosques and other local events."  Harwood's argument is that that proves a double standard, its actually no different from examples of the FBI spying on Christian "political and faith-based groups."

He mentions NYPD programs which as I explained before do not prove that all American law enforcement has a double standard against Muslims. He condemns the "idea that American law enforcement's mass surveillance of Muslim communities is a necessary evil"  he provided very little evidence for 'mass surveillance' other than disgraceful local PD actions.

He cites a "West Point's Combating Terrorism center" study. The study actually states that "three percent of the attacks" by the non-Muslim far-right "were intended to cause—or were successful in generating—mass casualty incidents, further emphasizing the difficulty of far right violence to make the leap from small-scale attacks against specific human targets to large-scale activities of indiscriminate violence that have the potential to generate a high number of casualties." The study also states that the "great majority of attacks" by the non-Muslim far-right have been "perpetrated against specific individuals or facilities, and the far right has limited tendencies or capabilities to engage in mass-casualty attacks." Matthew's own source disproves his article!

Matthew further distorts the subject at hand by describing sting operations as "entrapment in arresting hundreds of Muslims inside the US on terrorism-related charges." He continues to prove little other than his own ignorance; authorities use the exact same tactics against the non-Muslim far-right. One commenter stated that the "investigation on the Oklahoma bombing and the subsequent trial revealed that the FBI had a lot of informants among the groups McVeigh frequented. I find it very hard to believe that the right-wing groups ( who are still active and dangerous) and their communications are not monitored anymore."

He asks "if David Stone Sr had an Islamic-sounding name, he, his two sons, and the four other codefendants would likely be spending the rest of their lives in a federal penitentiary?" He mentions Tarek Mehenna who  received a 17-and-a-half year prison sentence on conspiracy charges. Non-Muslim far-rightits arrested on conspiracy charges that weren't nearly as treasonous as Tarek's actions have received far greater sentences, one man was sentenced to 26 years. The actual facts do not suggest a double standard.

Harwood opened with words highly insulting to the Boston bombing victims, I'd love to see Matthew tell Martin Richard's family that Islamist terrorism is a "phony threat." Matthew descends even further with sympathetic words about Mahenna and his cause. Sunni militants in the Iraqi conflict committed ethnic cleansing and atrocities like wiring bombs onto girls with downs syndrome ,sending them into crowded markets and then detonating said bombs. All of which Harwood's talk about "making their way to Iraq to resist the US occupation of that country" and "Muslims defend(ing) their lands against American imperialism" in a sinister light as the sympathetic language is undeniable. Harwood clearly sympathizes with Islamists in lieu of their victims.

Matthew takes Tarek's claim that he only went to Yemen to study at face value, Mahenna discussed "possible contacts to help with admission to terror training camps." Harwood insists that Tarek "ejected al-Qaida's worldview" but the article clearly states Mahenna translated Al-Qaeda propaganda, Matty again disproves himself with his own words. He argues that Tarek "did not, among other things, believe civilians should be targeted" all of which is based on Mahenna's claims without evidence and therefore can and should be dismissed.

Matthew further enshrines Mahenna as a victim in article nakedly insulting to Boston victims, he thinks Tarek is a "thought criminal." He complains that Mahenna is only guilty of "same kind of violent but constitutionally-protected online advocacy engaged in by...the radical right." As we can see from CIF content extremists produce pro-Al-Qaeda propaganda without being arrested. If Matthew is correct why aren't any of those people in jail?

Hardwood repeats his false claim that the FBI never spies on Christians: "White Christians rarely have to worry that an informant or undercover agent has infiltrated their churches." He also racializes Islam which is one of the most ethnically diverse faiths, its also cringe inducing since middle eastern Americans as defined as White. American Muslims also have above average incomes. Facts disprove his hyperbolic distortions the only content the guardian seems to publish these days.

What If Mona Eltahawy Wrote a New Egyptian Constitution?

Its hard to parody Mona Eltahawy: recall her "they wouldn't dare if I was Black" tweet or support for terrorist Khader Adnan. Still I wonder what it would be like if she wrote a new constitution for Eygpt?

"The bill of rights:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, unless its to stop those poor oppressed women from choosing to wear hijabs. We must save them from themselves. After all hijab bans get results thanks to such bans Turkey has a secularist government that would never attack protesters with skin burning chemicals.

Amendment II

Well regulated privilege checking is necessary for speaking truth to power.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against mansplaining.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall  be required,  excessive fines imposed and cruel and unusual punishments will be inflicted on those who slut shame and body police women."

The world's largest prison population?

Anti-Americanists have a new battle cry: the claim that the USA has the world's largest prison population. For example Adam Liptak wrote an article claiming that "U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other nations...China, which is four times more populous than the United States, is a distant second, with 1.6 million people in prison."   Terry Eagleton sneered that America "has a higher proportion of its population in prison" than any other developed country. Glenn Greenwald defamed America as the"most brutal sprawling prison state on earth" and "the world's largest prison state, imprisoning more of its citizens than any nation on earth."

Liptak admitted that PRC data does not cover prisoners in "administrative detention" whose number he puts in the thousands, which is actually an undercount of PRC prisoners. Chinese prison statistics and Liptak do not include victims of the Laogai prison slave system. When Mao started the  Laogai system he imported Soviet consultants to help him fully replicate Stalin's Gulags.

Chinese law plainly states that Laogai prisons are a slave system that exists to product "wealth for society" and "economic construction." According to the Laogai foundation the system has at least "1007" camps while the "true number is likely to much higher." Three to five million people are "currently imprisoned in  these camps." China has one of the largest slave systems in human history; it it is nakedly false to claim that the USA has the largest prison population. The writings of Liptak and others are tantamount denial of PRC slavery.

The American system is also best evaluated by comparing it to conditions in other democratic countries.  The French penitentiary system is in many ways worse than its American counterparts, France has the EU's highest prison suicide rate. According to Prison chaplain Birgitta Winberg Swedish prisons are among the worst in the EU! She has stated that "in no other country are people in isolation before they are charged."

Solitary confinement is a universal policy widely practiced throughout the democratic world. In America it does not exist in many states while a growing movement is leading the charge to completely abolish solitary confinement; Colorado, Maine and others states have eliminated solitary detention. Two American states legalized marijuana while 18 allow medical cannabis which makes the USA more liberal on drugs than European democracies like France or Norway. All of which suggests that the imbecilic drug war policies are coming to an end.

America does not have the largest prison population but it does have a duty to reform its penitentiary system. As I wrote earlier in my post about NSA Americans must aspire to greater things than being ethically superior to the dictatorial world or or Europe. Ideologues fear monger telling Americans to fear the state above all else, while that is a very unhealthy and false outlook we must take every chance available to repair our system. Fortunately reform is not an abstract idea, its an ongoing reality in blue and red states.  Prison reform enjoys bipartisan support without significant opposition to it meaning that incarceration rates will continue to fall.

New York state's reforms have "managed to reduce both crime and imprisonment simultaneously." North Carolina is home to "shrinking prisons" caused by "the state’s massive revision of its sentencing laws, which is meant to keep as many offenders out of prison as possible through closer supervision and treatment." Oregon enacted prison reforms intended to "keep Oregon’s prison population flat and dampen the growth in spending on prison operations." Pennsylvanian prison reforms are designed so prison populations "will stay down, and more inmates will have a lesser chance of going back to prison after being released" while "non-violent and short-term offenders" will be sent "to local community facilities that better suit their offenses and rehabilitation needs."

Utah has been accurately described as 'Glennbeckistan' but even that state has enacted prison reform to "allow drug offenders and others to earn early release into halfway houses, home confinement and ankle-bracelet monitoring." Texas has played an important part in prison reform, the state "said no to building eight more prisons and began to shift nonviolent offenders from state prison into alternatives, by strengthening probation and parole supervision and treatment. Texas was able to avert nearly $2 billion in projected corrections spending increases, and its crime rate is declining. At the same time, the state’s parole failures have dropped by 39 percent." Other states are trying to lower prisons populations with early releases. I don't have the space in this entry to document the entire scope of vibrant American prison reform fortunately you can follow the process through sites like 'right on crime.'

Keith Humphreys documented the "continuing decline in the number of Americans who are behind bars or on probation/parole" which has "gone unnoticed." If ideologues who make howl about prison stats were genuinely concerned about prisons instead of exploiting an issue to score anti-American points why is it so 'unnoticed?' Humphreys also explained that "the Pulitzer Prize-winning Politifact documented that President Obama has kept his promise to respond to drug addicted non-violent offenders with rehabilitation rather than incarceration"

Kevin Drum argued that "the good news is that since the drop in lead emissions is permanent, crime rates are likely to stay fairly low and incarceration rates are likely to continue to fall. Someday, instead of hearing about overcrowded prisons, we'll be tearing down old prisons because there aren't enough inmates left to keep them in business."

In Other News

Bob Cesca has an article explaining how Geenwald and company are actually damaging the cause of NSA reform, I fully agree.

John Pilger Humiliates Himself

The guardian favors hyperbole over journalism, recall how Greenwald defined good journalism as writing that arouses anger. The term 'yellow journalism' was coined to describe various dishonest ways that newspapers competed for the popular cartoon 'the yellow kid.' The guardian engaged in yellow journalism by publishing  screeching ravings by John Pilger, a living cartoon character.

The guardian discredit themselves by publishing Pilger who has described  Hezbollah as "humanity at its noblest" and supports neo-nazi Gilad Atzmon which resembles fascist ravings about ideal men. Shiraz Socialist proved that  Pilger supports Assad and argued that rebels were "responsible for the Houla massacre." Pilger pretends to  value all life; his articles shows that he places individuals like Assange or Snowden over Syrians.

Pilger's article revolves around claims Morale's plane was "forced down" a "metaphor for the gangsterism that now rules the world and the cowardice and hypocrisy of bystanders..." Extremists play populist games but reveal that they have a very low opinion of the masses they imagine themselves fighting for, Pilger thinks they are hypocritical and cowardly. In the 21st century delusional hubris is all Pilger and his fellow travelers have.

 John describes the USA as "a vast Orwellian police state" "mass spying" and "criminal activity on an epic scale." Far from being dystopic death squads American agencies are less extreme than the finest European democracies. Pilger is a fan of Hugo Chavez who passed a law that allows warrantless wiretapping and state manipulation of the judiciary, the NSA cannot wiretap without warrants. Venezuela is an institutionally anti-Semitic whose intelligence agencies have inherited the inquisition's job of spying on Jews.

Pilger's central claim is untrue according to Philip Bump  Pilger is relying on "reporting comes from a single source, the Bolivian government, and some of it has been contradicted." The tall tale "of the re-routed Bolivian president's plane is falling apart." According to Michael C. Moynihan Morales' story does not "make sense... Morales’s plane didn’t leave from the airport housing Snowden but one on the other side of Moscow. There is also the emergence of an audio recording of the Bolivian pilot telling an air-traffic controller that “we need to land because we cannot get a correct indication of the fuel indication—we need to land.”"

 Pilger dives into irrelevant ranting and falsely claims that Morales was abducted: "the rise of fascism in Europe might have been averted had the liberal or left political class understood the true nature of its enemy."  Extremists love to invoke fascism to pose as moral voices all while supporting modern fascism. John loves to equate and compare western democracies with facism, nazis or no heart from the care bears. The fact that he can criticize and play dissident without reprisal disproves such hyperbole. In a defense of  Serbian fascism Pilger said it is "ridiculous" to compare Milosevic and Hitler.

John believes that "the democratic facades of the US now barely conceal a systematic gangsterism...the same as, fascism." A false statement without evidence that trivializes real fascism there have never been fascist states with free elections, equal rights for minorities and free speech rights. Pilger links to a drone strike story; his own source states that the strike killed "mix of local militants" without civilian deaths. Norman Geeras wrote a superb entry ridiculing the "Pilger prevarication."

John quotes one of Harold Pinter's defenses of the USSR! Pinter supported the Milosevic regime: the erruption of 20th century fascism which Pilger also offered apologia for. Pilger supports anti-Semites and produces lies in service of classically fascist Baathist Syria. He supports Iranian clero-fascists and makes appearances on press tv which airs holocaust denial and forced confessions, apparently he thought Hutu power radio was too mainstream.

For anyone with a nakedly totalitarian record to describe states as 'fascist' is textbook projection and self delusion on par with otherkin kids. If the USA really was fascist Pilger and other comment is free writers would be devoutly pro-American. As we can see from Pilger's example those who make hyperbolic accusations of fascism usually harbor fascist views. Pilger is a leftover from 20th century faux radicalism. John is like Buster Keaton in the twilight zone episode 'Once Upon a Time' a comical relic from a bygone era.

Masyaf, Syria

Below is a photo of the interior of the assassin's castle in Masyaf that a source was kind enough to send to me.

Hastings Trooferism

When Michael Hastings passed I didn't pay very much attention to the story since I've never read any of his work. Later I found out that where I had seen a sad story others had seen an opportunity. Anyone with an internet connection knows that conspiracists will spin any event into a wicked plot, much like how religious devotees attribute random weather patterns to divine action. Its a waste of time to blog about conspiracists, what is noteworthy is how Hastings conspiracy theories suggest that their mentality is spreading.

The wikileaks tweet below was my first exposure to Hastings trooferism. The exploitation of a man's death with lies to pimp his agenda is irredeemable and typical of Assange. Though that isn't to suggest that the organization that aided torture, rape and murder in Belarus with a Shoah denier was ever a decent liberal organization.

Other people outside conspiracism took wilileak's insinuations and ran with it. The young turd- errr Turks covered "Wikileaks’ revelation, that Michael Hastings contacted them hours before his death to tell them that he was being investigated by the FBI, came as no surprise to The Young Turks‘ Cenk Uygur. On Wednesday night’s edition of Current TV’s The Young Turks, Uygur read the Wikileaks tweet on the air." Apart from Cenk reaching new levels of buffoonery (the closest he's come to achieving something) other outlets like the daily mail, common dreams and others devoted articles to the tweet.

In actuality the FBI was not investigating Hastings. There is no evidence in existence to suggest that he was under investigation. RIP journalism!

Amber Lyon also produced preposterous prevarications pertaining to Hastings. She was previously in the news when she claimed her work on Bahrain was censored by a network conspiracy. People like Glenn Greenwald rallied around her claim which was revealed as false, unsurprising since the documentary was aired on a national level.

Lyon cited infowars as a source on Hastings: an example of how anti-American allies will strike alliances of convenience with any vermin that share anti-American ideology. Other examples abound. Lyon appeared "on Alex Jones’s show to discuss her experience at CNN, and now she is peddling the new internet conspiracy that Rolling Stone journalist Michael Hastings was killed by the federal government because of a story he was working on." Obviously thats enough to discredit her but many people describe that show as only kooky when its one of the most racist on the internet. Lyon's new friend believes the blood libel is true.

The emergence of Hastings trooferism in relatively mainstream media highlights convergence between the far-right and anti-Obama leftists. Both share anti-war ideology which is so powerful that various leftists in the past have united with the worst extreme right wing degenerates: for example 'stop the war' coalition has produced pro-Baathist propaganda. Both sides have utopian inclinations and extreme aversions to authority that can manifest in identical ways. Echoing tea party calls for a second revolution Chris Hedges took to his execrable 'truth dig' blog to call for the overthrow of Obama telling people to 'rise up or die.'

Liberals critical of Obama must live by the same standards they judge the president by. They betray those standard through conspiracy theories, uncritical Assange hero worship and alliances with the extreme right. If the left continues to advance towards the fringe there will soon be a new market for Oregon compound real estate.