Translate

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

A few additions, just posted a 55 page report on my forum, its titled "All Necessary Means-Employing CIA operatives in a war fighting role along side special ops forces"....for those of you that like that sort of thing.  On a more upbeat note, just posted new podcast on Jose Mujica and the role of terrorists evolving into statesman.  Forget the "war on terror"...terror is an emotion.  Here what I have to say on stevepieczeniktalks.com

21 comments:

  1. There is one example of a former terrorist supposedly turned statesman who remains an un-reconstructed SCOUNDREL, OPPORTUNIST AND PHONEY.
    And that "man," (if that's what he is) is the much beloved by Bill Clinton (who says he's the greatest man of the 20th century).....NELSON MANDELA!

    Oh yes...

    Yesterday the BBC reported that in South Africa last year there were 60,000 cases of rape filed by women with law enforcement authorties.

    Such authorities in South Africa estimate that the real number of rapes every year against women is TEN TIMES that number, or a whopping
    600,000 women raped by black men every year in South Africa.

    One poll the BBC cited reports that 28% of South African men admit to having raped one or more women in the past.

    In most African countries rape is so accepted and widespread that 90% of all women report having been raped at one time or another in their lives.

    And as well all know in every single civil conflict the black combatants always massively rape any women they can find.

    And furthermore black African UN peace-keepers have been implicated time and time again in sexual abuse of refugees.

    So what of the great Nelson Mandela?

    Since blacks took power in South Africa the place has been turned into a living hell. Johansburg quickly became a crime-riddled ungovernable squallor such that everyone who could moved out to safer suburbs. Everyone who can lives in well-guarded subdivisions with high walls and razor wire everywhere. Justice and human rights are pretty much a thing of the past, and all elections are fixed.

    The masses of people are much worse off than under racist white rule, and everybody there knows it, particularly the blacks themselves.

    Nelson Mandela is no different than Mugabe, Kabila, Obiang, or any of the black monsters who rule depostically on that tormented continent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. sounds like the USA in 2013. You must have misread the name of the country.

      Delete
    2. The sad truth about South Africa is that the racist white minority wasn't up to the job of presenting themselves as the only alternative to savagry, and therefore lost the moral high ground.

      The white minority should have been better at giving the natives better housing, food and wages. If the whites had just paid a little better they could have coopted the savages, but instead they got greedy and insisted on exploiting.

      Whites are civilized people but they are typically too stupid and feckless to prevent the savages from winning.

      Delete
    3. For that matter the venom of abolishionism in the United States could have been eliminated if the slave holding states had instituted some minimal reforms checking slave owners from cruelty, just as animal cruelty laws exist today.

      If the slave owners had just behaved like the gentlemen and forbid the most extreme abuses of their status they might have averted the holocaust which eventually befell them.

      Delete
    4. MITmichael,

      Actually, the South could have avoided the catastrophe which befell them by not seceding from the Union.

      All the declarations of secession of the southern states present reasons based on the alleged abuse by northern states of the institution of slavory by and through the federal government.

      It was the alleged encroachments on the institution of slavory which caused the southern states to secede.

      How do we know this?

      Because it is repeatedly stated in various formula in each of the eleven seceding states' printed & recorded declarations of secession.

      So, yes, the South brought on the Civil War, but not because of some few and particularly brutal slave masters.

      One could argue the South grew paranoid in their defense of the 'particular institution' of slavory.

      This paranoia -- a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations -- pushed the South to their subsequent actions.

      Which, come to think of it, is what usually gets paranoid individuals into trouble, too.

      Delete
    5. Any state can leave the Union for any reason if you believe in self-determination and the revolution of 1776.

      Most of the important founders were slave owners from the south, and there is no reason to think Madison, Jefferson, and Washington harbored "unconscious" moral apprehensions regarding slavery.

      If you personally think slavery is evil that's a widespread opinion [which I do not necessarily share] but to say that the end justifies the means, and that any means of ending it is justifiable is a moral tangle, if morality is really the issue here.

      Frankly morality in my view has little place in public policy, or for God's sake foreign policy, in matters where there's no agreement on what's moral or immoral.

      That's why the founders established representative institutions and checks and balances, to avoid resolving such matters with endless carnage.

      Delete
    6. I believe in the result of the Civil War.

      The Union was saved.

      The results are settled.

      --------------------

      MITmichael wrote: "Most of the important founders were slave owners from the south, and there is no reason to think Madison, Jefferson, and Washington harbored "unconscious" moral apprehensions regarding slavery."

      False, there are numerous indications that all the above individuals had moral reservations regarding slavory.

      Certainly Washington freed his slaves upon Martha Washington's death.

      But there is more, in 1786, Washington stated: ”I can only say that no man living wishes more sincerely than I do to see the abolition of (slavery)…"

      Jefferson wrote a passage for the Declaration of Independence, which was later removed per the convention, which read, in part, "[the King has been] Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he [the King] has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce..."

      Of course, Jefferson wrote the immortal words, "All men are created equal".

      Madison, perhaps, showed the most ambivalence towards the institution of slavory and blacks in general, matters also suggest he recognized the long-term moral indefensibility of slavory.

      As Madison wrote: "A general emancipation of slaves ought to be 1. gradual. 2. equitable & satisfactory to the individuals immediately concerned. 3. consistent with the existing & durable prejudices of the nation..."

      Obviously, our opinions differ, as you apparently, under unknown circumstances, might condone slavory.

      MITmichael wrote: "If you personally think slavery is evil that's a widespread opinion [which I do not necessarily share]"

      Thankfully, by constitutional amendment, slavory is outlawed in America as a moral, political, and economic abomination.

      Delete
  2. In Latin America, the Middle East, and Asian people often become rebels because their consciences compell them to act to favor of the interest of the people, or to oppose intolerable injustice.

    Only in Africa do we find that each and every rebel movement is motivated SOLEY by opportunism and ambition by the rebels. They always conduct themselves as bad or worse than the despots they claim to be objecting too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'll tell you what I do know and its this before Mandela the black people we're treat very poorly and the whites held all the resources and wealth whilst the poor lived in shanty towns, after worldwide condemnation and ultimately the release of Mr mandela guess what? The whites still have power and the blacks still have shanty towns! But at least they have "freedom" yeah freedom to still have nothing!! So your average Soweto resident is free to buy a Bentley flying spur but its an abstract freedom becauseits a freedom not available to him but he has freedom to starve whilst the elite pillage and plunder

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are both rich and poor whites in South Africa. After the blacks gained political power a small political elite of them share the country's wealth with the rich whites. To some degree it was a cooption of the African National Congress leadership into the white rulers, but the ANC still holds all the political power and has even the wealthy whites under their thumbs.

      As always when the ANC came in they promised material reforms and basic wage rights, etc., none of which has occurred.

      No where in Africa has indiginous leaders ever performed on providing services or even the most basic of dignities for the people.

      Delete
    2. I agree both do have poor undoubtedly and as you have correctly stated the anc have done very little which is precisely my point that nothing has changed at all as far as the less well off are concerned and it only highlights the situation that as long as we bring out a hit record or hold a concert for Mr Mandela (whom I have no bad feeling) then is released then that's it! Job done we will get back to living in a tin hut with our hard fought freedom! We may not have a pot to piss in but Graceland is a fantastic album!!

      Delete
  4. One can also suggest the paranoia grew out of the "subconscious" realization that the institution of slavory was morally indefensible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think any historian would agree that the slave-owners were "paranoid."

      The first states which left did so because the Republican platform and Lincoln himself stated that it was his intention to end slavery.

      The second group of states to leave did so because they were asked to commit treason by making war on other states. Given this demand by the Executive states like Virginia had little choice but to leave or commit treason along with the northern states.

      Delete
    2. MITmichael wrote: "I don't think any historian would agree that the slave-owners were 'paranoid.'"

      Please, you disqualify your analysis from serious consideration by claiming there isn't a single historian who would agree slave owners were paranoid.

      See, here, "To be a slaveholder was almost by definition to live in fear. While they proclaimed paternalistic feelings for their human property, slave owners regularly committed acts that created bitter hatred: whipping the disobedient; separating families; exploiting sexually black women; withholding adequate food, shelter, and clothing–the list could go on and on. While most slaves prudently kept any hatred to themselves, during a time of general crisis such as occurred at the start of the American Civil War, some slaveholders and other whites apparently could not help but exhibit what can only be described as a paranoid fear of African Americans." -- Donald R. Shaffer

      Again, Lincoln wanted to stop the spread of slavory to the territories, that was the stated plank of the Republican Party, but you simply parrot the paranoid thinking of slave owners, in claiming Lincoln or Republicans, generally, wanted to "end slavory".

      Stop the spread of slavory, yes.

      But eliminate slavory -- only in abolitionists' dreams.

      But I for one am glad the abolitionists' dreams came true!

      Delete
    3. Shaffer is simply wrong, and there is no historic evidence to support his statement. He's merely making a polemical, anti-slavery screed.

      If you believe his statement then you'll have to picture Madison and Jefferson with whips in their hands torturing their slaves, and I think you know very well that's not something either of them would ever do.

      And if they wouldn't do it then which slave owners would? The true answer almost none.

      Most slave owners were merely wealthy gentlemen just like Madison, Jefferson, and Washington.

      The ridiculous image of the cruel slavemaster which Shaffer parrots is a made-up melodrama from abohlishinist propaganda...not history.

      As for Lincoln and the Republicans in 1860...

      They stated they wanted to end slavery everywhere by outlawing it in the Congress when more non-slave new states would tip the balance there, in a few decades.

      Lincoln repeatedly said in 1861 as President he didn't have the power to end slavery. That was never his plan until 1964, when he realized he could push through anti-slavery Amendments.

      As far as your declarations that you're glad for this or that...who cares? So you're on the side of John Brown, William Douglass and Thadious Stevens. These three never claimed to be moral men. They claimed to be proud zealots who would do anything at all to end slavery.

      Delete
    4. MITmichael wrote: "Shaffer is simply wrong, and there is no historic evidence to support his statement. He's merely making a polemical, anti-slavery screed."

      Please, numerous historians have commented on the "paranoia" of the southern slave-holders and southern politicians. And, this paranoia was directed at both the slaves (because of the natural possibility of revolt) and any and all northern talk of limiting the spread of slavory by legislative action.

      In all honesty, I don't think you, MITmichael, have done much research on ante-bellum slavory.

      A good history book on ante-bellum slavory, both its practices and its economic importance to the South, is The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South, by Kenneth Stampp.

      MITmichael wrote: "If you believe his [Shaffer's] statement then you'll have to picture Madison and Jefferson with whips in their hands torturing their slaves..."

      Completely false, MITmichael, you are employing a logical fallacy: Because Madison and Jefferson didn't physically & mentally abuse their slaves (how do you know the plantation overseer didn't engage in "discipline"?) that means almost no slave owner physically & mentally abused their slaves.

      You claim is unpersuasive for anybody who has researched ante-bellum slavory.

      MITmichael wrote: "Most slave owners were merely wealthy gentlemen just like Madison, Jefferson, and Washington."

      Wrong, again, there were all kinds of slave owners, from the brutal rice plantations of South Carolina with huge numbers of slaves to people who owned a single slave.

      Your generalizations are the claims of an uninformed apologist.

      MITmichael wrote: "They [Republicans & Lincoln] stated they wanted to end slavery everywhere by outlawing it in the Congress when more non-slave new states would tip the balance there, in a few decades."

      False.

      Please provide evidence -- your unsupported claims are more revealing of your own personal bias than being an accurate historical summation of the facts.

      But, again, you parrot the paranoia of the South. Southern 'fire-eaters' certainly claimed and likely believed such would be the case, that is why they attempted to secede from the Union.

      But that was not in the platform of the Republican Party in 1860 or what Lincoln said in his speeches of that Fall.

      I'm sure most abolisionists hoped for such an eventuality, but realists didn't waste a lot of time on that scenario.

      MITmichael wrote: "As far as your declarations that you're glad for this or that...who cares? So you're on the side of John Brown, William Douglass and Thadious Stevens. These three never claimed to be moral men. They claimed to be proud zealots who would do anything at all to end slavery."

      Again, what's with the logical fallacies?

      I dare say, 99% of Americans share the same opinion I do in being glad slavory is in the dust bin of American history these last 150 years or so.

      Also, you gather together three historical figures, each opposed to slavory, all three were abolishionists, and then try to equate their morality (or implied lack, thereof) to all the millions who oppose slavory today.

      It's simplistic and wrong.

      It suggests you have a low regard for anybody who doesn't share your fringe opinions on this issue.

      Your tactics are easy to see through and are not persuasive.

      To me you sound like a neo-Confederate revisionist.

      Talk about a dead-end.

      Delete
    5. MITmichael wrote: "John Brown, William Douglass and Thadious Stevens. These three never claimed to be moral men. They claimed to be proud zealots who would do anything at all to end slavery."

      On the contrary, all three claimed their actions were morally justified.

      With regards to Brown, murder & mayhem gained him a date with a rope.

      Douglas and Stevens believed slavory morally wrong.

      They were among many who spoke out against slavory or legislated against slavory.

      Your characterizations are a distortion.

      Delete
  5. I don't want to belabor this, but does anyone really believe that Madison and Jefferson were "brutal" toward their slaves?

    If anyone really believes that slaveowners were "brutal" they've been watching too many hollywood movies.

    Of course there was 2 or 3 percent of slaveowners who were psychopaths, and there should have been cruelty laws to protect slaves from them.

    But Tarantino's statements that "slavery was a thousand times worse than anything in Django" is pure garbage.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Replies
    1. Anyone who really believes the propaganda that slave owners were cruel monsters has to cast Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Lee into the group as well.

      It's very convenient to toss aside all consistency and embrace the contradictions that these noble founders were great men, but all the other slaveowners must have been devils.

      Face the facts...

      Slavery was not that bad.

      Compared to what these people would have faced if they remained in Africa it was a picnic.

      It was the best thing that could have happened to them.

      Delete
    2. MITmichael, your generalization about slave owners is simplistic. There were slave owners who treated their chattel property with respect and were humane and those who didn't treat slaves with respect and weren't humane.

      And many who were a little of both depending on the circumstances.

      Your moral sensitivity seems to be at the low end of the spectrum regarding the issue of slavory.

      Delete