The daily banter is an relatively decent publication. Cesca has produced enjoyable criticism of Greenwald's fraudulent reporting then again that only requires fundamental critical thinking skills. Though it falls to prey to popular leftist fallacies, for example they recently published an article arguing that the coalition lost the Iraq war which only could have happened if the Baathists expelled the invasion or the insurgents overthrew the new Iraqi state and then expelled the coalition.
They published nakedly anti-Semitic articles on circumcision written by some troll with the handle EA Blair. This particular Orwell wannabe is a new atheist in the mold of Christopher Hitchens; a legend in his own stunted mind convinced of imaginary superiority. The new atheists have a serious anti-Semitism problem; Hitchens spent years support Palestinian militancy, cited and defended anti-Semites ranging from Israel Shahak to Shoah deniers. Sam Harris believes that Jews brought their persecution upon themselves, including the Holocaust.
Of course like most things male circumcision can be constructively criticized without lapsing into bigotry but EA focuses on Judaism. The vast majority of circumcisions have no connection to Judaism there's no reason, save for Judenhaus, to focus on Judaism at all. EA luridly provides an image of Judaism as a violent, backwards faith its as if an officer in the Okhrana became a Hitchens fanboy.
The first article equates male circumcision to FGM multiple times. There is no equivalence between the two, EA is repeating a popular misogynist fallacy. FGM has no medical benefits, prevents urination and makes intercourse an agony unlike male circumcision which could only be comparable to FGM if the head of the member was lopped off.
The second article is explicitly anti-Semitic it features an image from a Seth MacFarlane cartoon where Tarantino circumcizes a Jewish baby with blood flying through the room. Daily banter uses images of blood and gore to defame Judaism, a supposedly progressive outlet continues the blood libel. (Its also a reason to despise MacFarlane but those are never in short supply.)
The article is titled "a retort to a misguided reader." A retort is a quick reply, not an entire article which is too long to be a retort. EA clearly hungers for everyone to share his misguided delusion that he's intelligent, if he wants to convince any of that he should learn definitions of words.
EA described Judaism as "bronze age bullshit" therefore outing himself as an anti-Semite. The far-left defend their racism as "criticism of Islam" he presents his bigotry as a critique of circumcision. This is a clown who thinks he's enlightened for defaming a faith that was nearly eradicated.
The rest of the article is a response to Jewish critic, he whined that the critics used a "tactic of your ilk, to decry a critic as a bigot and call for them to be driven into the desert like they did to scapegoats in Leviticus 16:8." Your ilk? Thats basically 'you people' written by some guy who probably refers to himself in third person. The use of biblical imagery in a response to a Jewish critic is aggressively anti-Semitic like his insistence that if "there’s an anti-Semite on this email chain, I can’t see how it is me."
EA resorted to a strawman when he claimed that his opponent thinks that "faith concepts in themselves deserve protection from criticism, lest its feelings are hurt." Lest? Really? Its easy to imagine EA giggling about how sophisticated he thinks that will make him look. He continued with "no concept, no theory, no opinion and no belief is ring-fenced off from criticism." His critic did not argue that circumcision is above criticism rather that his criticism had obviously entered into anti-Semitism, in fact Judaism is unique in its encouragement of critical thought.
He proved that his extraordinarly patient oppponent was correct when he wrote "at least not outside of the deserts of the Middle East." He thinks that Judaism is backwards desert faith and he's not alone that has been the view of countless anti-Semites. Its also hard not to detect the implication that his critic should got back to the desert.
EA continued to provide an example of generic imbecility with: "let me entertain for a moment, and against my better judgment, your facile accusation of homophobia." Doesn't that sound like a middle schooler trying to mimic a Bond villain? He thinks that "“homo” is defined as "(ie male to male)" anyone with a sixth grade education knows that 'homo' means 'same.'
The little troll disgraced himself further by claiming that his critic had tried to "silence" him for "daring to" criticism Judaism another legend in his own mind where an email is call to persecution. He caricatured Jews as overly sensitive but exhibited that trait. He describes Jews as "those who follow the Bronze Age teachings of the Big Book of Jewish Fairytales" there's no need to criticize the obvious about a statement so vile and anti-Semitic: it speaks for itself.
Daily banter bloggers enjoy policing other outlets but publish a sickening racist article. Will they apply the standards they judge others by to themselves? Or will they hypocritically continue to host an article advancing one of the most evil prejudices in the history of our entire species?
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
The Washington Post Publishes Muslim Brotherhood Propaganda
The international reaction to Egypt mirrors the irrationality of the crisis; westerners are actually taking sides in a squabble overseas. Various commentators have cast objectivity to the wind to produce pornographic propaganda painting the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood - a parent of al-Qaeda - as a victim. While others churn out disinformation about a valorous army fighting evils salafis to safeguard a revolution as if shooting protesters becomes legitimate with enough popular support. The Washington Post has published a depraved article that falls into the first category.
The article opens with a sentence describing MB members as "activists" who were "branded as terrorists." From the very start the article bestows legitimacy on the middle east's version of the black dragon society; 'activist' is one of the most innocent words available. The authors Sly & Sheridan use the word 'branded' to give the impression that an organization with a long history of terrorist attacks is an innocent party slapped with the t-word for propaganda purposes. They argue that "1000 Morsi" fans were killed, if thats true why did Al-Jazeera have to lie?
According to the article unnamed 'analysts' think that the MB could reject its "decades-long commitment to nonviolence" a delusionally false claim. The article was published as "unprecedented" MB attacks on Christians are intensifying to levels just short of the Hamidian massacres. Morsi himself had appointed a member of a terrorist group that massacred tourists in Luxor as governor of Luxor. To describe a group carrying out persecution so horrific that Christians canceled for the first time in over a century is depraved propaganda in service to clero-fascism.
Sly & Sheridan would probably try to argue that such actions were carried out by rogue bad apples maybe even trying to blame the army for stirring things up. The Muslim Brotherhood leadership issued a statement declaring that: "the Pope of the Church sends a memo to the current commission to cancel the articles of Sharia. After all this people ask why they burn the churches. And for the Church to declare war against Islam and Muslims is the worst offense. For every action there is a reaction." Islamists are using justifications favored by their western apologists. I cannot detect any difference between that quote and the typical article using the 'blowback' concept.
They to supply a facsimile of evidence for their claim that the men who paraded nuns around like trophies of war are peaceful by quoting an MB official named Khaled Hanafi! Anyone who attempts to prove that a violent theocratic cult are peaceful by quoting a member of that cult is only fit for a career in janitorial labor not journalism. Its hideous that they ignore the voices of victims to fawn over MB thugs.
Sly & Sheridan describe Mohammed Badie as a "spiritual leader" who in actuality in advocate of violent jihad against the Jewish people. Badie's wikipedia page details how he "demanded that the Arab world reject negotiations with Israel in favor of "holy Jihad," saying that "the Zionists only understand force."" The Washington Post's understanding of 'peaceful' is at odds with basic sentient thought, exactly like the Muslim brotherhood.
After citing Ikhwanists they provide a history of the Muslim Brotherhood as heroic dissidents and victims who 'endured' "arrests, torture and imprisonment." The problem is that S&S have made Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood member Ayman al-Zawahiri into a martyr. A number of other AQ members who participated in the brotherhood's 'clashes' "with Egypt’s authoritarian governments."
The article only cites people who are sympathetic to the MB like "Ibrahim el-Houdaiby, a political analyst who belongs to a prominent Muslim Brotherhood family." The lack of sources critical of the organization confirms that Sly & Sheridan are biased in favor of the MB.
According to Ibrahim MB is at risk of losing "a great part of its members to violent movements" if the brotherhood were a genuinely peaceful group its members would not jump at the chance to join violent. Sly & Sheridan's own source can be used against their cravenly wretched article.
Bob from brockley explained the "only right line now is neither SCAF nor MB Egyptian working class as independent third camp." An obvious ethical position that needs to be explained since a leading newspaper has published fiction in praise of salafi filth. The Post should remove Sly & Sheridan's article if they want to atone for how they have betrayed journalism and basic ethics by publishing lies about a fascist organization.
The article opens with a sentence describing MB members as "activists" who were "branded as terrorists." From the very start the article bestows legitimacy on the middle east's version of the black dragon society; 'activist' is one of the most innocent words available. The authors Sly & Sheridan use the word 'branded' to give the impression that an organization with a long history of terrorist attacks is an innocent party slapped with the t-word for propaganda purposes. They argue that "1000 Morsi" fans were killed, if thats true why did Al-Jazeera have to lie?
According to the article unnamed 'analysts' think that the MB could reject its "decades-long commitment to nonviolence" a delusionally false claim. The article was published as "unprecedented" MB attacks on Christians are intensifying to levels just short of the Hamidian massacres. Morsi himself had appointed a member of a terrorist group that massacred tourists in Luxor as governor of Luxor. To describe a group carrying out persecution so horrific that Christians canceled for the first time in over a century is depraved propaganda in service to clero-fascism.
Sly & Sheridan would probably try to argue that such actions were carried out by rogue bad apples maybe even trying to blame the army for stirring things up. The Muslim Brotherhood leadership issued a statement declaring that: "the Pope of the Church sends a memo to the current commission to cancel the articles of Sharia. After all this people ask why they burn the churches. And for the Church to declare war against Islam and Muslims is the worst offense. For every action there is a reaction." Islamists are using justifications favored by their western apologists. I cannot detect any difference between that quote and the typical article using the 'blowback' concept.
They to supply a facsimile of evidence for their claim that the men who paraded nuns around like trophies of war are peaceful by quoting an MB official named Khaled Hanafi! Anyone who attempts to prove that a violent theocratic cult are peaceful by quoting a member of that cult is only fit for a career in janitorial labor not journalism. Its hideous that they ignore the voices of victims to fawn over MB thugs.
Sly & Sheridan describe Mohammed Badie as a "spiritual leader" who in actuality in advocate of violent jihad against the Jewish people. Badie's wikipedia page details how he "demanded that the Arab world reject negotiations with Israel in favor of "holy Jihad," saying that "the Zionists only understand force."" The Washington Post's understanding of 'peaceful' is at odds with basic sentient thought, exactly like the Muslim brotherhood.
After citing Ikhwanists they provide a history of the Muslim Brotherhood as heroic dissidents and victims who 'endured' "arrests, torture and imprisonment." The problem is that S&S have made Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood member Ayman al-Zawahiri into a martyr. A number of other AQ members who participated in the brotherhood's 'clashes' "with Egypt’s authoritarian governments."
The article only cites people who are sympathetic to the MB like "Ibrahim el-Houdaiby, a political analyst who belongs to a prominent Muslim Brotherhood family." The lack of sources critical of the organization confirms that Sly & Sheridan are biased in favor of the MB.
According to Ibrahim MB is at risk of losing "a great part of its members to violent movements" if the brotherhood were a genuinely peaceful group its members would not jump at the chance to join violent. Sly & Sheridan's own source can be used against their cravenly wretched article.
Bob from brockley explained the "only right line now is neither SCAF nor MB Egyptian working class as independent third camp." An obvious ethical position that needs to be explained since a leading newspaper has published fiction in praise of salafi filth. The Post should remove Sly & Sheridan's article if they want to atone for how they have betrayed journalism and basic ethics by publishing lies about a fascist organization.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Don't Boycott the Sochi Olympics
The goal of a Sochi boycott has become a liberal cause celebre. According to the Independent people "concerned about gay rights at the Sochi Winter Olympics" should "get boycotting." While 'boycottsochi.eu' explains that they "cannot stand by silently while people are being killed there, freedom and human rights are being broken and cold war times are coming back smoothly and imperceptibly."
The olympics have never had any moral authority. The games are a politicized spectacle that have been hosted by various dictatorships for decades. Former olympic host the PRC has probably killed more people than Russia's entire population. Avery Brundage served as IOC president for years all while maintaining ties to a variety of dictatorships. IOC has continually refused to hold any integral memorial for Munich massacre victims.
Olympic boycotts do not have a record of inflicting other than annoyance. Carter's olympics boycott only caused the USSR to giggle, barring South Africa from the 1964 olympics had no impact on aparthied. Saying no to Sochi is pointless feel goodery like Kony 2012, the most dangerous activism is that which requires little efort and only produces the illusion of progress. The idea could only wind up causing more pain since it threatens the dreams of athletes.
Pro-LGBT people should be thrilled about the Sochi games if they really want Putin hurt beyond his nightmares about invading half Chechen half Ukrainian village people. Even state media is reporting that Russia is set to become "the next Greece." The olympics have devastated the economies of every host country costing billions in return for nothing. The 2014 games will raze Russia's economy almost beyond comprehension because they are going "to be the most expensive ever, at an eye-popping $51 billion."
Sochi is in a conflict zone, the equivalent would be holding the summer olympics in Somalia. Russia might not have enough snow and Sochi could be too warm for winter sports, the cost and possible humiliation will damage Putin more than any boycott ever could. Who would want to boycott such unintentional entertainment? For once I might have to watch the olympics.
European posting on Russian gay laws is hypocrisy since many European countries are happy to sell Putin's weapons and buy his oil. Russia depends on "inflated high oil prices and the possession of vast energy reserves." If Europe really wants to help sexual minorities under the bear's paw they should boycott Russian oil. Putin's economy is already miserable and threatened by the American energy boom and after a 50+ billion dollar olympics an oil boycott stands a chance of success.
The olympics have never had any moral authority. The games are a politicized spectacle that have been hosted by various dictatorships for decades. Former olympic host the PRC has probably killed more people than Russia's entire population. Avery Brundage served as IOC president for years all while maintaining ties to a variety of dictatorships. IOC has continually refused to hold any integral memorial for Munich massacre victims.
Olympic boycotts do not have a record of inflicting other than annoyance. Carter's olympics boycott only caused the USSR to giggle, barring South Africa from the 1964 olympics had no impact on aparthied. Saying no to Sochi is pointless feel goodery like Kony 2012, the most dangerous activism is that which requires little efort and only produces the illusion of progress. The idea could only wind up causing more pain since it threatens the dreams of athletes.
Pro-LGBT people should be thrilled about the Sochi games if they really want Putin hurt beyond his nightmares about invading half Chechen half Ukrainian village people. Even state media is reporting that Russia is set to become "the next Greece." The olympics have devastated the economies of every host country costing billions in return for nothing. The 2014 games will raze Russia's economy almost beyond comprehension because they are going "to be the most expensive ever, at an eye-popping $51 billion."
Sochi is in a conflict zone, the equivalent would be holding the summer olympics in Somalia. Russia might not have enough snow and Sochi could be too warm for winter sports, the cost and possible humiliation will damage Putin more than any boycott ever could. Who would want to boycott such unintentional entertainment? For once I might have to watch the olympics.
European posting on Russian gay laws is hypocrisy since many European countries are happy to sell Putin's weapons and buy his oil. Russia depends on "inflated high oil prices and the possession of vast energy reserves." If Europe really wants to help sexual minorities under the bear's paw they should boycott Russian oil. Putin's economy is already miserable and threatened by the American energy boom and after a 50+ billion dollar olympics an oil boycott stands a chance of success.
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Socialist Unity's Hideous Homophobia
Extremist ideologues usually react with intense aversion to LGBT rights. 'Anti-imperialism' is a distinctly hteronormative world view as unnuanced as it is depraved, gay rights can only exist in the open societies that extremists loathe yet live in. They react to talk of gay rights with venom as if they are trying to mimic the violence to which their beloved dictatorships treat sexual minorities. They abandon arguments in favor of shouting invented thought terminating cliches like 'pinkwashing' or even more hilariously 'homoimperialism."
John Wight's attack on Stephen Fry for criticizing Putin is an example of that vile tradition. According to Wight Russian gay laws are nothing more than "making it illegal to provide information on homosexuality to under-18 years." Which is false as we can see from arrests of foreign homosexual tourists, police collusion in neo-nazi homophobic attacks and other well documented cases. Even critics fail to grasp the horrors of Putin's new laws which exist to exert control over the bodies of adult citizens. Wight downplays Russian institutional homophobia making himself an apologist for Putin.
John thinks that Fry's criticism makes him guilty "hypocrisy" whch is idiotic as the article opened with praise for how Fry criticized Britain over its foreign policy and gay rights. Wight is under the impression that Stephen's comparison "contemporary Russia to Nazi Germany" over the law is "ludicrous." He thinks that "only serves to trivialise fascism and the huge suffering endured by the Russian and Soviet people in the Second World War."
I doubt that socialist unity has never published any hyperbolic nazi comparisons. Fry didn't say that Russia and the third reich are the same he compared how both states have resorted to scape goats. If Stephen's comparison trivialized fascism and WWII deaths then the Russian state is guilty of that on a massive scale as WWII hyperbole is a common in Russian discourse. Neo-nazism is a growing ideology in the Russian federation, they have become significant political force.
John sees fascists under the bed yet seems to think that an authoritarian anti-secular state like the Russian federation is not fascist. He supports states like Baathist Syria, a classically fascist state that employed Alois Brunner to help them replicate fascism. Wight downplays Putin's homophobia while viciously attacking one of Putin's critics which makes it clear that he fully supports Russia's crackdown on gay teens who want to hold hands in public. The article has no condemnation of Putin's policies, none whatsoever.
Apparently "there are still cultural issues with regard to prejudice against gays in the country, the idea that liberals and activists in Britain have the requisite moral authority to preach to the Russian government over the issue is the product of arrogance." Wight confirmed by his status an apologist and supporter of Russian anti-gay measures by arguing that British activists cannot criticize Russia because he says so. He doesn't other any evidence or arguments in support of his quip which boils down to "shut it you f*ggots." The act of a straight man telling LGBT activists to be silent is abominably pompous homophobia much like a man telling women to be silent about FGM which socialist unity defended with similar arguments.
Next John tries to prove his charge of his hypocrisy by asking "where was the call from Stephen Fry for the 2012 London Summer Olympics to be moved in protest at Britain’s participation in illegal wars responsible for so much chaos and carnage in the Middle East, for example?" He only proved his own hypocrisy since he does not call for the Sochi olympics to be boycotted over Russia's ongoing war in the Caucasus. He mentions torture in the second sentence but he omits that Russian have engaged in torture with the state's blessing. Its even more hypocritical since John supports the Syrian dictatorship which makes him a supporter of a war of chaos, carnage and torture. Besides even he mentioned how Fry criticized British foreign policy in the middle east so no he is not a hypocrite unlike Wight.
Next its back to cultural relativism: "societies remain uncomfortable with homosexuality" that does not in anyway absolve the Russian state. If Britain were to pass similar laws against Muslims or some other worthy minority would John blog about how many countries remain uncomfortable with Muslims? The hypocrisy proves Wight's deep homophobia, sexual minorities are worth less than garbage to him.
Wight tried to save face by writing "there is of course nothing wrong with homosexuality as a lifestyle choice" but only further proves his opposition to gay rights. He expressed support for "freedom to choose any lifestyle a person so wishes" but not for LGBT equality. Like gay cure counselors he sees homosexuals as people who have chosen a 'lifestyle' not as people whose lives and loves are equal to hterosexuals.
Wight justified Kremlin persecution of sexual minorities by arguing that "social attitudes are inevitably buttressed and influenced by cultural traditions." He railed against 'western-centrism' but argued that "Russia’s new law against providing information on homosexuality to minors, while regressive, has to be seen in this context" thus he elevates his own opinion which is mired in bigotry over the voices of Russian gay activists, now thats western-centric!
John writes for a blog which praises peoples like (cli)Che Guevara who had Cuban homosexuals arrested and thrown into concentration camps. He praises Stalin who sent homosexuals to gulags and seems to think that he can tell them what to do. He also engages in apologia for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which gave the third reich a free hand to begin the Shoah.
The article ends with a reminder that "Vladimir Putin is not Hitler and any attempt to conflate him with the fascist dictator responsible for the Holocaust is not just wrong it’s offensive." Fry did not equate the two he compared scapegoating by both states. Perhaps tomorrow he can publish an article that libels George Takei and praises Nasrallah. Far-left thought is obsolete and has nothing to offer but hate and only attracts people under the delusion that their darker impulses become noble with the right slogans.
John Wight's attack on Stephen Fry for criticizing Putin is an example of that vile tradition. According to Wight Russian gay laws are nothing more than "making it illegal to provide information on homosexuality to under-18 years." Which is false as we can see from arrests of foreign homosexual tourists, police collusion in neo-nazi homophobic attacks and other well documented cases. Even critics fail to grasp the horrors of Putin's new laws which exist to exert control over the bodies of adult citizens. Wight downplays Russian institutional homophobia making himself an apologist for Putin.
John thinks that Fry's criticism makes him guilty "hypocrisy" whch is idiotic as the article opened with praise for how Fry criticized Britain over its foreign policy and gay rights. Wight is under the impression that Stephen's comparison "contemporary Russia to Nazi Germany" over the law is "ludicrous." He thinks that "only serves to trivialise fascism and the huge suffering endured by the Russian and Soviet people in the Second World War."
I doubt that socialist unity has never published any hyperbolic nazi comparisons. Fry didn't say that Russia and the third reich are the same he compared how both states have resorted to scape goats. If Stephen's comparison trivialized fascism and WWII deaths then the Russian state is guilty of that on a massive scale as WWII hyperbole is a common in Russian discourse. Neo-nazism is a growing ideology in the Russian federation, they have become significant political force.
John sees fascists under the bed yet seems to think that an authoritarian anti-secular state like the Russian federation is not fascist. He supports states like Baathist Syria, a classically fascist state that employed Alois Brunner to help them replicate fascism. Wight downplays Putin's homophobia while viciously attacking one of Putin's critics which makes it clear that he fully supports Russia's crackdown on gay teens who want to hold hands in public. The article has no condemnation of Putin's policies, none whatsoever.
Apparently "there are still cultural issues with regard to prejudice against gays in the country, the idea that liberals and activists in Britain have the requisite moral authority to preach to the Russian government over the issue is the product of arrogance." Wight confirmed by his status an apologist and supporter of Russian anti-gay measures by arguing that British activists cannot criticize Russia because he says so. He doesn't other any evidence or arguments in support of his quip which boils down to "shut it you f*ggots." The act of a straight man telling LGBT activists to be silent is abominably pompous homophobia much like a man telling women to be silent about FGM which socialist unity defended with similar arguments.
Next John tries to prove his charge of his hypocrisy by asking "where was the call from Stephen Fry for the 2012 London Summer Olympics to be moved in protest at Britain’s participation in illegal wars responsible for so much chaos and carnage in the Middle East, for example?" He only proved his own hypocrisy since he does not call for the Sochi olympics to be boycotted over Russia's ongoing war in the Caucasus. He mentions torture in the second sentence but he omits that Russian have engaged in torture with the state's blessing. Its even more hypocritical since John supports the Syrian dictatorship which makes him a supporter of a war of chaos, carnage and torture. Besides even he mentioned how Fry criticized British foreign policy in the middle east so no he is not a hypocrite unlike Wight.
Next its back to cultural relativism: "societies remain uncomfortable with homosexuality" that does not in anyway absolve the Russian state. If Britain were to pass similar laws against Muslims or some other worthy minority would John blog about how many countries remain uncomfortable with Muslims? The hypocrisy proves Wight's deep homophobia, sexual minorities are worth less than garbage to him.
Wight tried to save face by writing "there is of course nothing wrong with homosexuality as a lifestyle choice" but only further proves his opposition to gay rights. He expressed support for "freedom to choose any lifestyle a person so wishes" but not for LGBT equality. Like gay cure counselors he sees homosexuals as people who have chosen a 'lifestyle' not as people whose lives and loves are equal to hterosexuals.
Wight justified Kremlin persecution of sexual minorities by arguing that "social attitudes are inevitably buttressed and influenced by cultural traditions." He railed against 'western-centrism' but argued that "Russia’s new law against providing information on homosexuality to minors, while regressive, has to be seen in this context" thus he elevates his own opinion which is mired in bigotry over the voices of Russian gay activists, now thats western-centric!
John writes for a blog which praises peoples like (cli)Che Guevara who had Cuban homosexuals arrested and thrown into concentration camps. He praises Stalin who sent homosexuals to gulags and seems to think that he can tell them what to do. He also engages in apologia for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which gave the third reich a free hand to begin the Shoah.
The article ends with a reminder that "Vladimir Putin is not Hitler and any attempt to conflate him with the fascist dictator responsible for the Holocaust is not just wrong it’s offensive." Fry did not equate the two he compared scapegoating by both states. Perhaps tomorrow he can publish an article that libels George Takei and praises Nasrallah. Far-left thought is obsolete and has nothing to offer but hate and only attracts people under the delusion that their darker impulses become noble with the right slogans.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
The Guardian Publishes a 911 Troofer
I always run the guardian through pornalize whenever I visit, its the only way to make the content decent. The embassy closures set off a wave of conspiracy theories. If the state had simply raised the terror level, skepticism would be understandable but they have closed over thirty embassies, no state would go to such trouble to win extra approval rating points. I'm sure the guardian's writers would love to imagine that Obama sits around all day throwing darts at their photos but the reality is that the president would not go to such measures just to spite them.
The guardian published an article by one Lance deHaven-Smith the advancing narcissistic fantasy that the president acted solely to spite the guardian. Smith is a Florida 911 conspiracist who said that 911 "was an inside job to advance a war agenda" he thinks that "the collapse of New York’s twin towers resulted from controlled demolition." The jokes write themselves: Florida man pretending to be patriotic lies about the deaths of nearly 3,000 fellow citizens to promote pathetic career.
Smith also promotes conspiracy theories about JFK and pearl harbor.. He wrote that FDR "maneuvered Japan to attack U.S. forces in the Pacific, and knew when and where Japan was going to strike but intentionally failed to warn U.S. military commanders at Pearl Harbor." Such claims are not only false, they're central in revisionist attempts to paint the axis powers in a favorable light. Remember when academia had some standards? I do not.
The article does have any evidence at all it boils to Lance arguing that his claim about the embassy closures are correct because the Ameican government has lied in the past. According to Smith the closures are perfect timing because of "opposition to the NSA." Its hard to see anyway that the alert could justify domestic metadata collection, since the intelligence was obtained from purely foreign SIGINT.
According to Smith the "recent travel alert and mission closures warrant suspicion because of the US government's history of using terror alerts to manipulate public opinion." Fumbling for evidence Lance cites how "Bush's popularity spiked upward whenever the terrorist threat level was raised from yellow to orange." He doesn't cite a single example remotely comparable to the closures which as far as I know is an unprecedented action. Real or imagined Bush manipulation of terror alerts do not prove that embassy closures are ploys to raise Obama's popularity, Smith has only proved that he has no grasp of elementary logic.
Lance continues by whining that "these speculations as "conspiracy theories". In the United States, this retort is sufficient to silence stories in the mainstream media unless the accusations are supported by smoking-gun evidence of elite political intrigue." Smith is very hostile to the standard that fantastic claims without evidence must be dismissed. Lance wants things to be fair and that requires suspending evidence based reasoning which is the only way how someone could take his article seriously.
According to Lance "there are examples could be cited" and none of them would prove conspiracy theories about the terror alert and embassy closures. He thinks that "dismissing doubts about possible intrigue on the grounds that they are "conspiracy theories" stymies debate when it is most needed" that which is presented without evidence like Smith's article must be dismissed. Theories without supporting facts and evidence only degrades debate and provides a forum to charlatans like Lance. The guardian continues to publish material in support of depravity and imbecility whether brazen support for dictators or obvious kooks.
The guardian published an article by one Lance deHaven-Smith the advancing narcissistic fantasy that the president acted solely to spite the guardian. Smith is a Florida 911 conspiracist who said that 911 "was an inside job to advance a war agenda" he thinks that "the collapse of New York’s twin towers resulted from controlled demolition." The jokes write themselves: Florida man pretending to be patriotic lies about the deaths of nearly 3,000 fellow citizens to promote pathetic career.
Smith also promotes conspiracy theories about JFK and pearl harbor.. He wrote that FDR "maneuvered Japan to attack U.S. forces in the Pacific, and knew when and where Japan was going to strike but intentionally failed to warn U.S. military commanders at Pearl Harbor." Such claims are not only false, they're central in revisionist attempts to paint the axis powers in a favorable light. Remember when academia had some standards? I do not.
The article does have any evidence at all it boils to Lance arguing that his claim about the embassy closures are correct because the Ameican government has lied in the past. According to Smith the closures are perfect timing because of "opposition to the NSA." Its hard to see anyway that the alert could justify domestic metadata collection, since the intelligence was obtained from purely foreign SIGINT.
According to Smith the "recent travel alert and mission closures warrant suspicion because of the US government's history of using terror alerts to manipulate public opinion." Fumbling for evidence Lance cites how "Bush's popularity spiked upward whenever the terrorist threat level was raised from yellow to orange." He doesn't cite a single example remotely comparable to the closures which as far as I know is an unprecedented action. Real or imagined Bush manipulation of terror alerts do not prove that embassy closures are ploys to raise Obama's popularity, Smith has only proved that he has no grasp of elementary logic.
Lance continues by whining that "these speculations as "conspiracy theories". In the United States, this retort is sufficient to silence stories in the mainstream media unless the accusations are supported by smoking-gun evidence of elite political intrigue." Smith is very hostile to the standard that fantastic claims without evidence must be dismissed. Lance wants things to be fair and that requires suspending evidence based reasoning which is the only way how someone could take his article seriously.
According to Lance "there are examples could be cited" and none of them would prove conspiracy theories about the terror alert and embassy closures. He thinks that "dismissing doubts about possible intrigue on the grounds that they are "conspiracy theories" stymies debate when it is most needed" that which is presented without evidence like Smith's article must be dismissed. Theories without supporting facts and evidence only degrades debate and provides a forum to charlatans like Lance. The guardian continues to publish material in support of depravity and imbecility whether brazen support for dictators or obvious kooks.
Friday, August 2, 2013
The Guardian Publishes Pro-Mugabe Propaganda
The guardian has published material in support of FGM, the Sudanese regime and at least three pro-DRPK articles. Earlier Jonathan Steele wrote an exceptionally moronic article attacking critics of Zimbabwe for "Mugabephobia." Now they have published another pro-Mugabe article, in the general part of the guardian not comment is free. The author is Roy Agyemang "the director/producer of award-winning documentary Mugabe: Villain or Hero." Its easy to imagine a guardian editor thrilled to find such a source that will certainly be objective but then sad because Hugo Chavez hasn't visited him in the form of a bird...yet.
The headline is laughable: "why a Robert Mugabe victory would be good for Zimbabwe." Roy pretends that the elections are something other than a rigged farce. Under Mugabe Zimbabwe has become the third most poorest country in the Africa, worse than Malawi or Togo, the country has a lower Human Development Index than Sudan, Yemen or Haiti.
Roy argues that the democratic world cannot "comprehend" Mugabe's "character" apparently we're all just jealous. Bobby "is more than just a politician, he leads a cause, or as his militant supporters would say, he has become the cause itself...A few days ago he told his supporters political independence was inadequate if it did not yield economic freedom." The guardian endorses the ravings of Mugabe and his thugs over the testimony of is victims. Roy admits that "it is fashionable to charge Mugabe with destroying Zimbabwe in its prime, little regard is given to the fact that the average African country has been granted nominal political independence amid economic subservience." Under Mugabe poverty increased and talk of independence is code for oppression by native dictators instead of White rulers.
Agyemang fantasizes that Bobby's "brand of post-colonial politics is steeped in the economic self-empowerment of the Zimbabweans." Roy's argument is marrow chillingly false, far from "independence" and "economic self-empowerment" Mugabe has brought slavery to Zimbabwe. The country's diamond industry depends on adult and child slave labor. The Guardian praises a man who has turned a country into "a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of forced labor and sexual exploitation." According to human rights groups "slavery has been 'legalised'" under Mugabe which has to lead to at least 10,000 deaths, an obvious undercount.
Roy and other warped characters justify Mugabe's tyranny with talk of 'colonialism' 'imperialism' and so on. As a state grows more oppressive in the present its defenders will talk more and more about crimes in the past. African dictators have either replicated conditions of colonial regimes or exceeded empires in cruelty. Mugabe's forced labor mirrors slavery in the French Congo, no one ever experienced horrors comparable to Bobby's regime in British Nigeria or French Tunisia.
Apologists for African dictators use arguments that echo colonial ideology. Like advocates for colonialism Roy depicts Zimbabweans as innocent beings without agency in need a strong guiding hand. Cultural relativist argument amount to the concept that non-westerners do not have the same human rights as westerners, which is nearly identical to the anti-universalism that justified colonial atrocities.
Roy mocks descriptions of Mugabe as "a terrorist, a Marxist ideologue, now a bloodthirsty tyrant" as "stereotypes" and "lore." Next he rambles about Bobby's "seven earned degrees spanning disciplines" he stops just short of staying that Mugabe is a master of art, literation and racquetball. The guardian would prefer for everyone to think that Mugabe is an erudite while ignoring the genocide that he carried with the help of North Korea.
The word Gukurahundi is a word that means "the early rain which washes away the chaff before the spring rains" and came to describe Mugabe's war of extermination against the Ndebele people. The DPRK trained Fifth Brigade committed "torture, rape and the purging of whole villages. Casualties were estimated in the hundreds of thousands..." Mugabe's victims, like all people, had educational aspirations, I wonder what they would have achieved if they had been allowed to live free lives.
Agyemang glosses over "the consequences (of land reform) have been there for all to see: an economic meltdown; a descent from breadbasket to a basket case; a rollback in civil liberties. The list of charges against him is endless." He complains of "sanctions which the western world had unleashed on Zimbabwe, ostensibly for imperiling human rights, many say as punishment for taking back the land, were biting his people as never before." The tactic of blaming conditions in a dictatorship on sanctions is widespread and false, Roy ignores Mugabe's use of slavery but condemns tepid western responses as pure evil.
There are no shades of gray when it comes to people like Mugabe you are either with the victimizer or the victims and Agyemang makes it obvious where he stands. He explains why he made "the film Mugabe: Villain or Hero?, where I spent three years in Zimbabwe gaining rare access to the Zimbabwean leader." Roy cannot even acknowledge slavery or extermination campaigns but by gawd he can plug his camcorder project. He deserves credit for not begging for kickstarter dollars; depravity does have its limits.
Ageymang has the self parodying gall to whine that Morgan Tsvangirai was a "flawed candidate" after lauding a man guilty of mass murder and slavery. Roy ends by arguing that Zimbabwean youth "are finding favour with Mugabe's fiery rhetoric, already founded in the land reform programme whose benefits are beginning to show." He does not provide evidence for either claim meaning that the quote should be dismissed.
Post-colonial extremism reminds me of Axis Japanese ideology. Both hold that the west is evil and responsible for all ills while the non-west is a victim that cannot do any wrong. Both define liberation as oppression and enslavement of the native by someone who shares his skin pigment. The extremism of the 60s and 70s have produced nothing but misery which does not stop sheltered enfeebled manchildren trying to keep fantasies of native utopias and masturbatory militarist 'resistance' alive.
The headline is laughable: "why a Robert Mugabe victory would be good for Zimbabwe." Roy pretends that the elections are something other than a rigged farce. Under Mugabe Zimbabwe has become the third most poorest country in the Africa, worse than Malawi or Togo, the country has a lower Human Development Index than Sudan, Yemen or Haiti.
Roy argues that the democratic world cannot "comprehend" Mugabe's "character" apparently we're all just jealous. Bobby "is more than just a politician, he leads a cause, or as his militant supporters would say, he has become the cause itself...A few days ago he told his supporters political independence was inadequate if it did not yield economic freedom." The guardian endorses the ravings of Mugabe and his thugs over the testimony of is victims. Roy admits that "it is fashionable to charge Mugabe with destroying Zimbabwe in its prime, little regard is given to the fact that the average African country has been granted nominal political independence amid economic subservience." Under Mugabe poverty increased and talk of independence is code for oppression by native dictators instead of White rulers.
Agyemang fantasizes that Bobby's "brand of post-colonial politics is steeped in the economic self-empowerment of the Zimbabweans." Roy's argument is marrow chillingly false, far from "independence" and "economic self-empowerment" Mugabe has brought slavery to Zimbabwe. The country's diamond industry depends on adult and child slave labor. The Guardian praises a man who has turned a country into "a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of forced labor and sexual exploitation." According to human rights groups "slavery has been 'legalised'" under Mugabe which has to lead to at least 10,000 deaths, an obvious undercount.
Roy and other warped characters justify Mugabe's tyranny with talk of 'colonialism' 'imperialism' and so on. As a state grows more oppressive in the present its defenders will talk more and more about crimes in the past. African dictators have either replicated conditions of colonial regimes or exceeded empires in cruelty. Mugabe's forced labor mirrors slavery in the French Congo, no one ever experienced horrors comparable to Bobby's regime in British Nigeria or French Tunisia.
Apologists for African dictators use arguments that echo colonial ideology. Like advocates for colonialism Roy depicts Zimbabweans as innocent beings without agency in need a strong guiding hand. Cultural relativist argument amount to the concept that non-westerners do not have the same human rights as westerners, which is nearly identical to the anti-universalism that justified colonial atrocities.
Roy mocks descriptions of Mugabe as "a terrorist, a Marxist ideologue, now a bloodthirsty tyrant" as "stereotypes" and "lore." Next he rambles about Bobby's "seven earned degrees spanning disciplines" he stops just short of staying that Mugabe is a master of art, literation and racquetball. The guardian would prefer for everyone to think that Mugabe is an erudite while ignoring the genocide that he carried with the help of North Korea.
The word Gukurahundi is a word that means "the early rain which washes away the chaff before the spring rains" and came to describe Mugabe's war of extermination against the Ndebele people. The DPRK trained Fifth Brigade committed "torture, rape and the purging of whole villages. Casualties were estimated in the hundreds of thousands..." Mugabe's victims, like all people, had educational aspirations, I wonder what they would have achieved if they had been allowed to live free lives.
Agyemang glosses over "the consequences (of land reform) have been there for all to see: an economic meltdown; a descent from breadbasket to a basket case; a rollback in civil liberties. The list of charges against him is endless." He complains of "sanctions which the western world had unleashed on Zimbabwe, ostensibly for imperiling human rights, many say as punishment for taking back the land, were biting his people as never before." The tactic of blaming conditions in a dictatorship on sanctions is widespread and false, Roy ignores Mugabe's use of slavery but condemns tepid western responses as pure evil.
There are no shades of gray when it comes to people like Mugabe you are either with the victimizer or the victims and Agyemang makes it obvious where he stands. He explains why he made "the film Mugabe: Villain or Hero?, where I spent three years in Zimbabwe gaining rare access to the Zimbabwean leader." Roy cannot even acknowledge slavery or extermination campaigns but by gawd he can plug his camcorder project. He deserves credit for not begging for kickstarter dollars; depravity does have its limits.
Ageymang has the self parodying gall to whine that Morgan Tsvangirai was a "flawed candidate" after lauding a man guilty of mass murder and slavery. Roy ends by arguing that Zimbabwean youth "are finding favour with Mugabe's fiery rhetoric, already founded in the land reform programme whose benefits are beginning to show." He does not provide evidence for either claim meaning that the quote should be dismissed.
Post-colonial extremism reminds me of Axis Japanese ideology. Both hold that the west is evil and responsible for all ills while the non-west is a victim that cannot do any wrong. Both define liberation as oppression and enslavement of the native by someone who shares his skin pigment. The extremism of the 60s and 70s have produced nothing but misery which does not stop sheltered enfeebled manchildren trying to keep fantasies of native utopias and masturbatory militarist 'resistance' alive.
Sympathy for the Theocrat
The Pope's visit to Brazil has enjoyed worshipful media coverage. He has been lauded for 'attacking' "inequality on visit to Brazilian slum" and 'calling' "for social change." Even supposedly progressive papers like the guardian wrote that "Pope Francis' social reform message is exactly what Brazil needs to hear."
Newspapers ignore what the Pope actually represents. Inquisitors operated in Brazil from the early modern period until 1834. At least forty thousand Jews were persecuted, people were still burned alive in the nineteenth century. The pope's silence speaks loudly about his character, a man of conscience would take the chance to apologize for crimes in Brazil.
For Frank to talk about equality is staggering hypocrisy since he believes god chose him to rule over millions in a ceremonial feudal system. How interesting that holy systems are no different from man-made forms of government, what a coinky dink. Frank's little vacay is going to cost Brazil at least 40 million dollars at a time of financial crisis therefore creating additional poverty. The trip is an attempt to halt secularism, far from a simple tour to greet the faithful.
Frank's stunts receive more attention than the fact that his condom policy contributes directly to AIDS deaths. Papal homophobia could severely impact life for sexual minorities in Brazil who face attempts to make 'gay cures' legal and endemic homophobic violence. The Pope was hailed for saying "who am I" to judge on homosexuals. Time magazine said gays "have most to gain from" Frank's latest comments. Time magazine reduced homosexuals to objects of pity who need theocrats to state that sexual minorities are kinda sorta human.
The Pope was quoted out of context he actually said "when I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized." Frank's comment are nothing progressive; its the same 'love the sinner hate the sin' routine which inevitably leads to anti-LGBT hatred. Frank's opinion is worse; he promotes the fantasy of a gay conspiracy or "lobby" influenced by anti-Semitism. Francis hails from a country where nearly 90% hate Jews.
Frank's opinions sharply contradict coverage lauding him as a less conservative reformer. He stated that "on the ordination of women, the church has spoken and said no. John Paul II, in a definitive formulation, said that door is closed." Female clerics exist in many Christian denominations which means that the Vatican's policy is based in misogyny not theology (though the line between the two is usually thin). If the Papal office can come up with something as ridiculous as reduced time purgatory for twitter followers there is no obstacle to female priests save misogyny.
No one should be shocked that Frank is illiberal, once the Vatican is no longer an obstacle to condoms for AIDS the Church will be as irrelevant as scientology. Though it is shocking that people bought into hype and acted as if Jon Stewart became Pope. Unctuous media coverage is the real sin; the relics of the past must be scrutinized, to praise them betrays modern values.
Newspapers ignore what the Pope actually represents. Inquisitors operated in Brazil from the early modern period until 1834. At least forty thousand Jews were persecuted, people were still burned alive in the nineteenth century. The pope's silence speaks loudly about his character, a man of conscience would take the chance to apologize for crimes in Brazil.
For Frank to talk about equality is staggering hypocrisy since he believes god chose him to rule over millions in a ceremonial feudal system. How interesting that holy systems are no different from man-made forms of government, what a coinky dink. Frank's little vacay is going to cost Brazil at least 40 million dollars at a time of financial crisis therefore creating additional poverty. The trip is an attempt to halt secularism, far from a simple tour to greet the faithful.
Frank's stunts receive more attention than the fact that his condom policy contributes directly to AIDS deaths. Papal homophobia could severely impact life for sexual minorities in Brazil who face attempts to make 'gay cures' legal and endemic homophobic violence. The Pope was hailed for saying "who am I" to judge on homosexuals. Time magazine said gays "have most to gain from" Frank's latest comments. Time magazine reduced homosexuals to objects of pity who need theocrats to state that sexual minorities are kinda sorta human.
The Pope was quoted out of context he actually said "when I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized." Frank's comment are nothing progressive; its the same 'love the sinner hate the sin' routine which inevitably leads to anti-LGBT hatred. Frank's opinion is worse; he promotes the fantasy of a gay conspiracy or "lobby" influenced by anti-Semitism. Francis hails from a country where nearly 90% hate Jews.
Frank's opinions sharply contradict coverage lauding him as a less conservative reformer. He stated that "on the ordination of women, the church has spoken and said no. John Paul II, in a definitive formulation, said that door is closed." Female clerics exist in many Christian denominations which means that the Vatican's policy is based in misogyny not theology (though the line between the two is usually thin). If the Papal office can come up with something as ridiculous as reduced time purgatory for twitter followers there is no obstacle to female priests save misogyny.
No one should be shocked that Frank is illiberal, once the Vatican is no longer an obstacle to condoms for AIDS the Church will be as irrelevant as scientology. Though it is shocking that people bought into hype and acted as if Jon Stewart became Pope. Unctuous media coverage is the real sin; the relics of the past must be scrutinized, to praise them betrays modern values.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)