Posts by Jaime Ortega-Simo:
Back to basics: Neo-Tribalism, Neo-Monarchism, and Neo-Militarism will overtake democracy in western countries sooner or laterMay 17th, 2016
By Jaime Ortega.
Sumerian states developed a democratic system before the Greeks applied the notion of elections in philosophy. We didn’t invent democracy, we copy pasted and innovated its integration to western culture to satisfy our freedom of choice. Democracy has recently reemerged in the past 200 years — mainly guided by socialism and capitalism, but monarchies, theocracies and other forms of rule have also dominated the world.
The biggest achievement in modern history has been the submission of military power to governments using constitutional law to smelt western nations under the umbrella of democracy without use of force. The concept of individual freedom was unthinkable for a vast majority of ancient cultures because it meant granting power to peasantry and the under privileged.
I can’t say I like dictatorships, but within the frame of history, military might has overwhelm the culture of many nations – if not all.
The current crisis in Europe and America is less correlated with financial turmoil than with ideological social struggles. The battle of attrition that divides government and military policy is one problem that could end democracy as it exist today – it’s getting worst—and the Youth is anti-war, anti-military and anti-government.
The suppression of military values inside the western world will not pass overlooked by top military officials who watch how foreign and national policy unfold under political control without military advice amid rising nations like China, Russia or India which they consider a threat for national and international security.
The military core has witnessed the destruction of pride and national sovereignty to the demands of citizens willing to cancel the unification of America and Europe in favor for individual goals that cater division, including lack of personal sacrifice for the greater good of the country and the world. The average westerner not only despises foreign military intervention but has no intention to enroll in case war broke out with another country.
The youth that resides under the wing of democratic nations has become disconnected from the reality of world affairs. They no longer believe freedom is achieved with self-sacrifice, but by riots, protest, civil unrest, social revolutions and financial reforms. Throughout the years the spoils of society –including materialism–have ushered the youth to believe war is not a necessary evil to achieve national and financial stability, but instead a primitive solution ignited by blood thirsty ignorant people eager to control the world at all cost. In that regard democracy has revived the youth into an anarchic, communist and Marxist mindset where egalitarianism can only work under a progressive reform.
The original role of western government was to fairly distribute resources without intermission from elitists, monarchs and religious leaders. But with much power came great responsibility and the rise of political party affiliations in democratic nations slowly infiltrated the system with modest forms of corruption, passing bills contrary to public opinion and national interest at the expense of fairness – of course not all lobbyist practices secretly planned are faulty – just 80% to be sarcastically honest.
Political reforms today are based exclusively on moral issues rather than financial or structural change. They create the illusion of change based upon issues that take on moral ordinary problems. Issues like climate change, Transgender bathroom usage and police brutality are moral issues used to foster controversy among voters who have a myopic view of the system or simply interpret everything according to the American liberal media model designed to incite controversy to rack up attention –ultimately to generate network growth.
The day newcomers like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders publically state ‘let’s talk about how young unskilled Americans lack hard work ethic and discipline, and not blame illegal immigration and crime as a cause of high unemployment,’ it will be an honest political spectrum. But the disconnection between people and government is also partly fault of the typical voter who has the ability under a democratic system to point the finger, but not be blamed.
Western governments have become the conduits to blame for everyone’s problem. Politicians have become impractical puppets acting on behalf of ignorant people with stupid demands — which make absolutely no sense. People don’t want to be blamed for their actions and would rather accuse politicians for their own personal self-indulgence. The government now acts like the ‘genie in the bottle’. A few examples:
1) John smokes one pack of cigarettes every day and he doesn’t want to quit. He is overweight. He also drinks sugar pop and drinks beer at the local bar alongside his work buds. He eats unhealthy. Instead of getting in shape, soon after he returns from work he watches television for 4 hours. John blames the government for his lack of health coverage, his diabetes, high blood pressure and cholesterol — he had a pneumonia a few months ago. He feels the government is not helping Americans get better health benefits and feels angry.
The Truth: John should not smoke cigarettes. He should spend his money on health bars or save it. He should quit sugar pop and beer, and drink water instead, which is cheaper a better for his health. He says he doesn’t have time to cook healthy meals or exercise, but he is willing to spend four hours watching Television, and loves spending money at his local bar. John should blame himself, not the government. He is the result of his own victimization.
2) Before the 2008 market crash, many low income Americans signed very risky mortgage loans. (True story) Margaret barely making any money, was somehow able to apply for an expensive home mortgage. She doesn’t really care about the terms and conditions of the contract provided by the bank, she is happy and just wants a new expensive house at all cost that comes with a swimming pool and nice front porch. She feels for the first time that she is beating the system by taking on the loan. The financial collapse suddenly happens, she loses her home and she gets mad with the government. She says it is all their fault.
The Truth: The banks never forced Margaret to sign any contract. She came inside the bank at her own free risk. It’s totally her fault. Instead of questioning her action, given the preconditions, she took the risk without conducting additional research. She should of read the terms and conditions. If she didn’t understand the contract, she should have done additional research like many Americans who after further analysis rejected the suspicious loans. If she didn’t have time to research, then obviously, common sense dictates she shouldn’t have signed anything to begin with. She thought she outsmarted the market and she was wrong, and paid the price.
3) Tyrone dropped high school and lives in a low income neighborhood in Dallas. He argues the lack of education and opportunities provided by the local state government in the projects as insufficient and minuscule. Tyrone likes to dress up well, and just recently purchased the newest pair of Jordan’s – he holds a nice collection of shoes and owns a nice watch. They opened a restaurant just down the street where dishwashers are needed. Tyrone thinks that dishwashing position is too low of a job, so he is looking for footlocker or a company that fits more his style and will pay him more money – he just recently rejected a job as an assistant mechanic because he didn’t want to get dirty.
The truth: Just down the street from where he lives there is a high-school that provides high school drop-outs the opportunity to obtain a free GED diploma to encompass a better future. Just two blocks down the street they have a Goodwill which has a nice collection of math, history and English books, which cost $3 USD dollars each. Tyrone can spend $150 USD on a new pair of Jordan’s but he can’t spend $3 USD in investing in his future? – there is also a free public library not far away from the park he frequents, that he never attends, and is mostly empty for people his age (23). Tyrone like many Americans, is a low skilled individual without a high school diploma. He feels entitled to the best jobs because he is an American citizen, but when low skilled jobs open up, Tyrone would rather leave the Mexican immigrant take the dirty job. Tyrone is to blame for his own problems, not the government. He has the ability to change, but would rather keep his gluttonous lifestyle and blame the government not having any education or expertise.
4) Donald Trump blames immigration for the drug epidemic hunting families and individuals across America. He thinks that people will vote for him if he cracks down on illegal immigrants because it would significantly lower drug abuse intake among American people.
The truth: Americans who take drugs are responsible for their own actions. Illegal immigrants don’t force them to take drugs. If Americans didn’t consume drugs, Mexican cartels would become bankrupt and cease to exist. The American people are to blame.
As the few examples above indicate, individual greediness has halted the expectations of people and government into a state of perpetual victimization.
The political class is also broken. Politicians have dirty hands. Real change, includes big spending; big money is contrary to the collective commonwealth of the average Joe who cannot afford to lobby against financial institutions that have the funds to adjust and set new laws at their mercy against ordinary people without power.
However, even if big spending was more accessible to public demand, it wouldn’t stop the decline of western society. Western countries are under their last phase because people themselves are the backbone of governments and have become entitled to change without self sacrifice and self blame. The rise of conspiracy theories and theorist in the past few decades shows the misstrust and contention between people and government, despite the fact, that we live on a relative peaceful world compare to other ancient epochs. The ideological cancer of individualism will be the determinant force behind a new world without democratic means, infested with individual agendas.
With democracy, ideological reforms have swarmed governments and transformed them into an ideological battle of good and evil, fairness and unfairness, justice and injustice – the wealthy will blame the poor for jealousy and the un-wealthy will blame the wealthy for greediness. Meanwhile, military power has diminished its role in society for individual freedoms that cater disunity. Governments no longer control resources, but control moral behavior and transfer their resentment to the armed forces for social experimentation – the perfect guinea pig.
The poisonous mixture between congressmen and bureaucrats, has fueled the rise of corruption and rise of moral asymmetry in western governments to diminish the power of nationalist and military officials into a state of ethical justice pushed by politicians to capture people’s emotions. With bureaucrats partly in control; military operations are based on protecting trade and transnationalism, as oppose to defending national sovereignty in the name of force. The soldier has been subjugated to fight battles for corporations, rather than battles based on honor and national pride – that will change soon.
The political class has accepted the fact that military values oppose what true global democracy stands for, in order to obtain unity without the use of violence. The cut of military expenditure, low national values, and Military enrolment are all clear precursors of the problems facing western democracy as a whole in the near future.
If that wasn’t enough the US government has cut military funding to soldiers, and has created an environment where soldiers are looked upon as villains and not heroes among civilians. The propaganda and rise of the progressive left has damaged the image of the military’s sovereignty worldwide. The Neo-cons also damaged the image of the military by cheating military missions into globalized programs to westernize the world. The military despises Democrats and Republicans, but hates democrats more because disorder and individual freedoms are direct threats to the core belief of the military.
The military willingly summited all its powers to democracy thanks to the constitution, where honor and loyalty meant the ultimate sacrifice to achieve financial and social freedom – it meant something— a belief in decadence thanks to all the ideological perspicacity allowed to permeate and divide western countries. There was fear about what role the armed forces would play in government and judicial courts during the rise of democracies all around the world – politicians have done a great job breaking the military apparatus worldwide and silencing its growth even in highly nationalistic countries like Japan. Yet militaristic power nations like China, Russia, Pakistan and India have grown financially and stretched their military muscle as a warning sign of the near future.
The common misconception of democracy is simple. People think that technological advancement and financial growth are direct results of democracy; the same can be said about social freedoms and civil rights movements — when in-fact they’re not.
The Church of England allowed the industrial revolution to prosper when England was not a democracy. Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, ended an economy based on austerity to develop a socialist country with economic privatization injecting capital into the system that later gave birth to a democratic system. Augusto Pinochet, after cracking down the Marxist party, successfully reformed the country and funded its technological development to compete financially with other western countries. If we go further in history, the same could be said about the Mayas, Egypt, the Islamic Caliphate, the Roman Empire, Mesopotamia and many other empires. Democracy and advancement are friends, not brothers.
Wealth and democracy are friends, not sisters. In the ancient past many cultures provided a certain degree of personal privilege and security to their citizens.
We tend to believe that democracy, advancement and military will bond to the ages – but history shows to be a false assumption. Democracy is at the dawn of its own collapse and hedging into a new system I call Neo-Militarism, Neo-tribalism and Neo-monarchy. Western politicians are acting akin totalitarian states already, basing reforms on moral behavior not exclusively on actual change while citizens don’t take any responsibility on their faults.
Four possible scenarios could lead to such conversion. Eventually a financial collapse so vast that will erode the base of trade worldwide and impoverish nations to the point governments are replaced by neo-Military forces who will outlaw politicians as corrupted and bureaucrats as accomplices. They would also deal with renegades and prosecute and destroy individuals opting to rebel or divide people with self prescribed agendas.
The second option is that people will want to take self-control of resources and the military will be disbanded losing its unity in many western countries. It is not hard to imagine, many young people today have started to hate government and politicians — the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is no coincidence (I predicted it) – in the future it is going to get much worse and anarchy might rule again fracturing many nations into separate states with independent rulers — Neo-Tribalism.
The third option is that certain countries will rise up in civil war akin the Middle East after the Arab spring. A revolt against local and national governments. In Europe, sooner or later, we will observe a war against native Muslims born in the old continent versus those who claim the land as exclusively theirs. Muslims will triple their population numbers sooner than later and alarm the non-religious and cultural religious establishment. The nature of Islam is to conquer not to be submissive. Neo-monarchies are possible because great military leaders instead of calling themselves dictators, could crown themselves kings without the consent of people who at that point in time will stop believing in democracy anyway.
Fourth option comprises all the options above. That means we will observe the above options in all western countries in a sort of chaotic system without clear rulers — or winner takes all.
Now of course, this sounds unreal, paradoxical and highly hypothetical because technology and science veils the idea of suddenly stopping progress to go back to a primitive world; but I am not of the opinion that history is progressive, but cyclical. Technology is a tool, not an ideology. Highly advanced civilizations are highly unstable forces, and not a historical guarantee.
Some argue that it’s highly unlikely to go back to basics because we are highly civilized. Sophistication creates an atmosphere of security among nations. But hold on. true security comes from our military? And we are destroying it! Western governments and people live a moral utopia with fingers pointed at each-other without lack of self-blame. Military and governments are disconnected in most western democracies. People are spoiled and believe in the survival of the fittest. A financial collapse is what would take us back to basics.
That is exactly the problem. It’s not supposed to be this way, it’s not the historical norm, and I bet my words that it will all go back to normal sooner or later. Wealth without the military means easy prey and division among people. Democracy has an expiration date and will be replaced by neo-forms of ancient ruling systems—don’t bet against it.
Comments Off on Back to basics: Neo-Tribalism, Neo-Monarchism, and Neo-Militarism will overtake democracy in western countries sooner or later
Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.
Thomas Eddie Bullard. PhD.
He contributed several articles for the Abduction Study Conference held at MIT in 1992. One such article, treating a comparison of abduction investigators’ findings, he later expanded into “The Sympathetic Ear”, published by the Fund for UFO Research in 1995. He contributed to other research.
1)How many credible scientist are investigating the UFO phenomena?
I am not aware of any scientist active in researching UFOs within a university or other “official” context today. David Jacobs (a historian) did teach at Temple University before his retirement; Leo Sprinkle (psychologist) retired from U of Wyoming; John Mack (psychiatrist, deceased) at Harvard. These three were involved with abduction research. David Pritchard, an MIT physicist, did some UFO research on his own time during the 1990’s but has not continued so far as I know. Bruce Maccabee, an optical physicist working for the Navy, has done extensive UFO research but again on his own time and dime, and posts important studies on the Internet. Richard F. Haines, a retired NASA research scientist, and other associates with scientific/ engineering backgrounds operate the National Aviation Reporting Center on Aerial Phenomena (NARCAP), which carries out technically sophisticated analyses of unusual aerial phenomena reported by pilots (available on website). Robert Bigelow financed the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS) that employed scientists to investigate anomalous phenomena, but he closed the organization in 2004 and the Internet articles seem to have disappeared.
2) A lot of people have observed lights floating in the sky, some shaped like lines and dots; others proclaim to have observed unknown aircraft flying around visible sight – the government calls them black projects. Are such sightings real?
People have reported UFOs in just about every imaginable configuration, from formless blobs to complex machines. The classic disk or saucer shape has been common since 1947 and continues to be; triangular or V-shaped objects have grown more common over the past 30 years or so. MUFON posts a monthly breakdown of the various shapes reported and shows that these two classes dominate, but other simple geometries are present as well. Some descriptions of structured craft could reflect observations of military aircraft, some secret, others not secret but not recognized for what they were. The human imagination is also notorious for structuring ambiguous stimuli into seemingly otherworldly craft–for instance the Phoenix Lights of 1997 were very probably the lights on a V-formation of military aircraft, but while some witnesses saw the lights as just a flight of lights, other witnesses saw the lights attached to a giant V-shaped dark body. The short answer is most sightings consist of a visual stimulus. They are real in this sense. Whether those sightings add imaginative structure or report structure that was also a part of the stimulus, this is the important question, and a much more difficult one to answer.
3) In 2012 Kelton Research conducted a survey commissioned by National Geographic that showed that one out of ten Americans had personally witnesses a UFO. Many cases are observed all over the world. Do people that observe these crafts, are they delusional? Do they suffer from any mental condition?
UFO witnesses seem to be a cross-section of society and as far as psychological testing of them, such as the MMPI, they appear to be perfectly normal people. That is, they are a normal group, with as many eccentric, fantasy-prone, or other uncommon traits as any other random sample would have. There’s no reason to think anything is unusual about UFO witnesses in general, but no reason to think they are any better as observers or reporters on the whole than anyone else.
4) Area 51 in Nevada, nicknamed Dreamland is it really an installation run by government. How many are they?
To my knowledge Area 51 is a secretive military test facility. I do not know if there are others of its kind.
5) Is there a difference between UFOs and military aircraft? (floating light vs physical powered object)
Efforts to explain UFOs as high-flying military spy aircraft or experimental vehicles have circulated from time to time. Some specific UFO cases have been explained as due to military aircraft, maneuvers, etc. Both are probably true sometimes but not in others. Things reported as UFOs encompass a variety of causes–astronomical, meteorological, man-made, and maybe even some anomalous phenomena. Ufologists have admitted that most reports–80%, 90%, 95%, 97%–have conventional explanations, whereas only the quality remainder holds genuine interest.
6) We know the universe is not infinite because it continues to expand at a greater speed than light. Astronomers have plotted the dimensions of the universe composed of 4% matter, and the remaining hypothetical dark energy and dark matter. The theory of evolution holds grown in the mainstream scientific community, but mathematically wise, what are the chances of evolution occurring in other galaxies?
Evolution is a process. It happens wherever life emerges. The known elements number a little over 100 and they are the same throughout the known universe. Only a few of these elements are really common–hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen–and they are also key building-blocks for life. Carbon is the basic element of life; it can form complex structures, link with other elements and form DNA, a molecule capable of carrying the biological “information” and duplicating to build more molecules like itself. Evolution is the changes that takes place in these molecules as they organize into organisms and adapt to their environment. Wherever the right elements and conditions exist, in this galaxy or any other, we should expect to find life and evolution in progress.
7) SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) has never received radio signals from outer-space that support the idea that life exist outside of planet earth. Do we have any hard evidence to back the existence of UFOs or is it based on highly speculative assumptions?
Listening for radio signals may be the equivalent of listening for talking drums in a universe where most civilizations have left drums far behind. The hard science to back UFOs as visitors from other worlds or anything anomalous does not exist, not in the sense of evidence that a consensus of scientists accepts. Little short of undeniable alien technology or biology would provide that level of acceptance. On the other hand there is some evidence from quality witnesses, radar, traces, and the like that would be more than enough to get you hanged in a court of law, but still not enough for scientific approval.
8) There are a few problems with the ETH (extraterrestrial theory). Physics shows it is impossible for any mass composed by atoms to reach the speed of light (186.000 miles per second). Even if they reached SL travel, coming from another galaxy would take them at least two million years to get to planet earth —- the closest star system Alpha Centaury is 4.5 LY from earth and there is no evidence of life there– strangely most UFO’s observed are small and not massive showing different forms and shapes. Some estimates indicate that a space ship carrying ten people travelling five LY’s from a nearby star at almost the speed of light would use up 500.000 times the total amount of energy consumed in the US in one year; also, an equal amount of energy would be consumed just in slowing down the spacecraft from the incredible speed at which it was travelling – for larger craft like the massive spacecraft shown in the movie Independence Day, it would use an staggering amount of energy. But physicist contend that to accelerate to the actual SL it is impossible because it would require infinite energy. Also changing direction in speed at such high speeds could obliterate any spacecraft given the amount of energy required to change direction while moving. Another problem is that reaching great travel speed in space would be very dangerous. It has been estimated that there are 100.000 dust particles per-cubic meter in space. Travelling at SL, an impact with even one of these tiny dust particles would destroy a spaceship – at one-tenth the speed of light, the impact would be equal to an explosion of almost ten tons of TNT. The last problem encountered, is that if these aliens have biological bodies, in space they would be exposed by extreme heat and freezing conditions – not to mention exposure to Gamma Rays, and Cosmic Rays constantly travelling through space which could instantly kill any biological organism. So with all the examples given above, what is the likelihood of UFO’s to be of extraterrestrial origin?
The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis does indeed pose some daunting challenges. Travel by means of accelerating mass by an expenditure of energy seems to have a nature-enforced speed limit that cannot be broken and becomes counterproductive as the need for energy increases exponentially. Perhaps there are ways to get from here to there without needing to “travel” in the brute sense. Bending space, quantum entanglement–we hear these ideas mentioned these days. I do not claim to understand how feasible they may be, but I mention them as reminders that we have not learned every possibility in the universe and some day other possibilities may befall us, and may already be available to other more advanced species. Another fallback is the slow-boat way of interstellar travel–a colony traveling at relatively slow speed with generations living within a hollowed-out asteroid, or in suspended animation, or half-robotic, half -organic beings able to endure thousands of years in space. It’s no way to visit another galaxy, but a possible way to reach neighboring stars and there are a number of them within a hundred light years. At least visitors from another star are not entirely out of the question.
9) Some ufologist claim that many objects observed travelling in the sky violate the laws of known physics. Objects that reach speeds of 50,000 MPH. Some objects suddenly make 90 degree turns in mid-air travelling nearly at 25,000 MPH. These object make no physical noise, and unlike aircraft or known space craft, make no sonic booms. Most of the objects cannot be picked up by radar, but some have. Sometimes show up on photographs, but other times do not. Many change colors many times only when accelerating, with virtually every color of the spectrum reported. Many times UFO’s instantly appear and disappear in front of people and they will pass through physical objects; people have also observed multiple UFO’s merged with other UFO’s, and into one UFO, and one UFO turn into many UFOs. What is your take on this?
A lot of very strange properties are associated with UFOs. Many of these oddities can be dismissed as mistakes and faults of observation, but there remains a body of seemingly “paraphysical” characteristics among UFO reports. Some ufologists have embraced the strangeness and interpreted it as evidence that UFOs are not machines, at least not all the time. Others have appealed to the UFO as a manifestation of technology so advanced that it “seems like magic,” as Arthur C. Clarke famously said. Sometimes UFOs are described as being gigantic, a mile wide and voluminous. If so, where does the air go that it displaces? In such a case I have to suspect human error is responsible for the strangeness, but in others, perhaps disappearance or right-angle turns, I can at least imagine super-technology at work. Such matters are outside my expertise and I have no idea how it’s done, but I’ll give it a maybe.
10) Gordon Creighton editor of the Flying Saucer Review, and recognized as the UFO leading publication said in 1996, before he died that. “There seems to be no evidence yet that any of these crafts or beings originate from outer space” – a position later adopted by Dr. Jacques Vallee a computer scientist and astrophysics a leading expert on the subject . Do you agree?
Creighton emphasized the para-physical accounts and paid less attention to the physical evidence. Ufologists who have acknowledged both aspects of the phenomenon have found themselves running back and forth for decades trying to reconcile the two. One aspect seems to offer answers only to lead the researcher to confusion, dead ends, and despair; the other aspect then seems the way to go, only to lead to the same muddle. I’ve felt the same pull and the same disappointments. My personal choice is to emphasize the physical aspects as, so to speak, the devil I know, and I can say the same for the ETH. In the end I’m more concerned with distinguishing the anomalous cases from the conventional ones, and separating the strongly evident anomalies from the “gray area” anomalies. In other words, I want to establish a basis of solid cases rather than decide on some final explanation. In the meantime I’ll take the ETH as the most plausible answer but I won’t cling to it as a fixed and final solution.
11) There is growing speculation that UFO’s are not extraterrestrial in origin, but more likely inter-dimensional entities. Many have abandoned the ETH for the IDH hypothesis — do you agree?
Anyone who focuses on the para-physical side of UFOs might well go for the IDH, but as I see it expressed, it’s more a case of substituting one unknown for another. That is, we don’t know what UFOs are, but how much does it help to explain them in terms that are themselves nebulous and undefined? I need to see a clearer theoretical structure before I’ll buy in–and in the meantime I want to see a well-structured presentation of the evidence that suggests an IDH.
12) According to the “Roper poll” nearly 4 million American’s have suffered an alien abduction. Is the number of alien cited abductions growing in America and worldwide?
The numbers of abductions or supposed abductions are not very clear-cut. The Roper Poll had holes in it–some answers could just as well reflect sleep paralysis events as abduction. Since that poll in the early 1990s there has been no follow-up, no way of knowing if abductions are increasing or decreasing. Anecdotal evidence suggests many people still have abduction experiences, but we really have no good basis to know which way the numbers tend.
13) Is it true that those who been abducted claim to have had sexual experimentation, face to face contact, translucent apparitions, predictions of catastrophic events including performing tasks? Is this true or imaginary?
These features are all recurrent characteristics in abduction accounts. They are “true” insofar as people report them. Their reality depends on the nature of the experience–is it objective or subjective? The very fact that so many people describe a similar course of events and the same kinds of events over and over calls into question any explanation that treats these encounters as imaginary or invented. They are not really “creative” acts; they appear like descriptions of experienced events. There is still room for doubt here, much doubt about abductions as physical realities; but the conventional alternatives have problems as well.
14) Is it true that alien abductees are given speeches of new age philosophy by their captors? What is there message?
Messages reported by abductees are sometimes confusing or even apparently deceptive, but some common threads run through many of these communications: The aliens come from a dead or dying planet; earth is facing a crisis; mankind may destroy itself and the planet; the aliens promise to help save us; we must give up materialism, war, and greed; a new age is coming and earth will become a paradise. These are simplified versions but they cover the most common themes. John Mack, Leo Sprinkle, and Kenneth Ring interpreted these messages to indicate that the alien (for want of a more certain identity) presence was benign, their intent to help mankind through a perilous time. Another take on these messages, drawing on Jungian psychology, was that the human collective unconscious was breaking through into consciousness in a process of healing the human psyche, re-balancing the primal parts of the mind with the rational parts that now had become dominant. David Jacobs takes a more literal interpretation. He sees the abductors creating a race of hybrids (part human, part alien in body, predominantly alien in mind) for the purpose of taking over the earth. The paradise the aliens promise is really the world once they possess it.
15) Many people claim that aliens ask abductees to enter a state of trance to communicate with them?
I’m not certain about the aliens “asking” for cooperation. In most cases I have seen in the literature, the aliens pretty much take what they want. Any request is really a form of coercive mind control. They will have the communication and anything else they want without the subject’s permission, though they may try to make it look voluntary.
16) The following quotes brought by experts on the subject explain there is a strong relationship between alien abduction and poltergeist and demonic possessions in the past.
-Gordon Creighton, Official 1992 Flying Saucer Review Policy Statement “A
large part of the available UFO literature is closely linked with mysticism
and the metaphysical. It deals with subjects like mental telepathy,
automatic writing and invisible entities as well as phenomena like poltergeist
[ghost] manifestation and ‘possession.’ Many of the UFO reports now being
published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly
similar to demonic possession and psychic phenomena.”
– Lynn E. Catoe, UFOs and Related Subjects: USGPO, 1969; prepared under
AFOSR Project Order 67-0002 and 68-0003 “UFO behaviour is more akin to magic
than to physics as we know it… the modern UFOnauts and the demons of past
days are probably identical.”
-Dr. Pierre Guerin, FSR Vol. 25, No. 1, p. 13-14 “The UFO manifestations
seem to be, by and large, merely minor variations of the age-old
– John A. Keel, UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse, p. 299 “A working knowledge
of occult science…is indispensable to UFO investigation.”
-Trevor James, FSR Vol. 8, No. 1, p.10 “Studies of flying saucer cults
repeatedly show that they are part of a larger occult social world.”
-Stupple & McNeece, 1979 MUFON UFO Symposium Proceedings, p. 49 “The
‘medical examination’ to which abductees are said to be subjected, often
accompanied by sadistic sexual manipulation, is reminiscent of the medieval tales
of encounters with demons. It makes no sense in a sophisticated or
technical framework: any intelligent being equipped with the scientific marvels
that UFOs possess would be in a position to achieve any of these alleged
scientific objectives in a shorter time and with fewer risks.”
– Dr. Jacques Vallee, Confrontations, p. 13 “The symbolic display seen by
the abductees is identical to the type of initiation ritual or astral
voyage that is embedded in the [occult] traditions of every culture…the
structure of abduction stories is identical to that of occult initiation
rituals…the UFO beings of today belong to the same class of manifestation as the
[occult] entities that were described in centuries past.”
-Dr. Jacques Vallee citing the extensive research of Bertrand Meheust [
Science-Fiction et Soucoupes Volantes (Paris, 1978); Soucoupes Volantes et
Folklore (Paris, 1985)], in Confrontations, p. 146, 159-161 “[The occultist]
is brought into intelligent communication with the spirits of the air, and
can receive any knowledge which they possess, or any false impression they
choose to impart…the demons seem permitted to do various wonders at their
– G.H. Pember, Earth’s Earliest Ages and Their Connection with Modern
Spiritualism and Theosophy (1876), p. 254 “These entities are clever enough to
make Streiber think they care about him. Yet his torment by them never
ceases. Whatever his relationship to the entities, and he increasingly concludes
that their involvement with him is something ‘good,’ he also remains
terrified of them and uncertain as to what they are.”
– John Ankerberg, The Facts on UFOs and Other Supernatural Phenomena, p.
21 “I became entirely given over to extreme dread. The fear was so powerful
that it seemed to make my personality completely evaporate… ‘Whitley’
ceased to exist. What was left was a body and a state of raw fear so great
that it swept about me like a thick, suffocating curtain, turning paralysis
into a condition that seemed close to death…I died and a wild animal
appeared in my place.”
– Whitley Streiber, Communion, p. 25-26 “Increasingly I felt as if I were
entering a struggle that might even be more than life and death. It might
be a struggle for my soul, my essence, or whatever part of me might have
reference to the eternal. There are worse things than death, I suspected… so
far the word demon had never been spoken among the scientists and doctors
who were working with me…Alone at night I worried about the legendary
cunning of demons …At the very least I was going stark, raving mad.”
– Whitley Streiber, Transformation, p. 44-45 “I wondered if I might not be
in the grip of demons, if they were not making me suffer for their own
purposes, or simply for their enjoyment.”
Others claim a smell of sulfur is present within their abduction also identical with demonic possessions and poltergeist. What is your opinion of such controversy?
These quotes reflect on the previous question about the nature of alien contact in abduction situations. They are abductions–involuntary capture and invasive treatment without permission. This intelligence is manipulative, deceitful, and concerned primarily with self-interest. These characteristics compare in general with traditional demons. Many fairy encounters in folklore are of the same order. Shamanic initiations include encounters with benevolent as well as harmful spirits, and the outcome may give the subject powers and knowledge, but may also make him a social outcast. The similarity of UFO encounters and anomalies associated with religion, mythology, and folklore have caused some ufologists to look at UFOs as simply one part of a larger phenomenon, and some have attempted to formulate a “unified field” theory to encompass all these anomalous encounters. Again there are theories of external origin–a cosmic control or thermostat (Vallee) or Ultra-terrestrials (Keel), and internal (again a Jungian notion or some human power creating entities or imposing itself on physical reality). These theories have been strong on speculation and weak on evidence. My personal take on this unity of all things anomalous is that whatever we encounter, we understand it in terms of established categories and knowledge. Strange things call especially loudly for meaningful solutions, so we draw on what we already “know” about the anomalous. That is, we invoke religion, mythology, folklore, or anything else that fits or seems to fit the situation in question. We build a new mythology that gives meaning to the mystery, but at the same time may lose the integrity of the event. For example, we may explain the facts of a UFO case that conveniently fit our desired explanation (the ETH, for example), and throw away the facts that do not fit. We have an explanation, but not for the actual event.
17) Any final thoughts?
Ufology is a human enterprise, subject to the shortcomings of human understanding and human willingness to accept anything new or different. We force-fit a lot of data to suit our beliefs and celebrate success, but we have largely confused and misled ourselves. Maybe we are the fairies, insofar as like the traditional fairies who led travelers off the road and into the swamp, we lead ourselves astray dazzled by our own mistaken brilliance.
Comments Off on Interview one: Inter-dimensional, extra-terrestrial or government projects?
By Jaime Ortega.
In the game of democracy they’re four major players: Voters, politicians, entrepreneurs and military personnel. Policy, egalitarianism and currency mold the lopsidedness parsed in the constitution of democratic nations; however, what most people don’t realize is that throughout history, the military has never depended on democracy to operate a nation; democracy in western countries is a modern day phenomenon. The military is bonded with the US constitution by pledge not by necessity — politicians and people need to understand this essential principle.
Sooner than later democracy will fail either government, people or the military — if not all — as it failed other countries since its philosophical inception in ancient Greece. The gravity of power and civil insurrection has shifted left, and its implosion may result in the dissolution of US Armed Forces – noticeable with Obama’s arbitrary decision to fire 157 senior military commanders in five years including a total of 9 military generals and flag officers—a dangerous control game.
Former president Bill Clinton and Obama, made similar policy adjustments, they both gutted the military and still represent the progressive obsession to weaken it – but is it a smart idea? Between 1993 and 2001, the Army went from 572,423 to 480,801, which is a decline of 16 percent. The entire military went from 1,705,103 to 1,385,116, a decrease of 18.8 percent. Obama’s last military budget cut came last summer to cut the U.S. Army to 40,000 active-duty soldiers, shrinking to 450,000 by 2017.
Obama’s lackluster attitude toward the military is resembled in an article published in Politico. “I recall asking one general, recently back from Afghanistan, if he’d shared his experiences and insights with the president. Rolling his eyes, he told me grimly that the White House preferred the military to be seen but not heard.” He asked if Obama was close to any military official when another retired senior officer said, “That is a great question,’ and added after a lengthy pause, “I don’t think he is close to anyone. He just doesn’t seem to have any interest in getting to know the military,” the retired general concluded.
But it’s not just Obama or his acolytes who despise military culture; the left has steadily shifted from mild-liberal to extreme progressive in less than a decade beating the revolutionary drums of activism. The movie American Sniper released in 2015, caused a typhoon of criticism in the progressive community. Progressives like Michael Moore and Bill Maher hastened attacks against the movie and the military core to degrade its national cause – that was the tip of the iceberg– the progressive media went ballistic on its negative coverage and reviews, causing ideological havoc with provocative headlines. Such united resentment targeted to condemn the military lifestyle is worrisome.
The 60’s started the Anti-War crusade to hollow the Vietnam War. Personally, I am against the Vietnam War. Ho Chi Minh tried to get his voice heard in France but was ignored by the United Nations before John F. Kennedy sent advisors and troops to Vietnam. Minh’s cause was genuine fighting against French colonization and exploitation of Vietnam. Yet, that is not a permissible reason to cut the US military budget. Sure, Iraq and Libya were huge fiascos, but no military has a perfect score in history, especially when ‘know it all’ politicians ignore advice from battlefield generals.
Politicians in the past had military background — that has changed. While the U.S. waged a war in Vietnam 50 years ago with 2.7 million men conscripted from every segment of society, less than one-half of 1% of the U.S. population is in the armed services today — the lowest rate since World War II. America’s recent wars are authorized by a U.S. Congress whose members have the lowest rate of military service in history, led by three successive commanders in chief who never served on active duty.
Such worrisome decline in military enrollment also occurs with civilians. According to the Harvard Institute of Politics when asked about sending troops to stop ISIS, 60 percent of the 18-to 29-year-olds polled said they support committing U.S. combat troops to fight ISIS. But an equal number (62 percent) say they wouldn’t want to personally join the fight, even if the US needed additional troops. Other recruiting issues make young men unqualifiable to join the US corps.
Readiness, and advocacy group of retired service members, says that 71% of 17-24- old Americans are ineligible for the military. The reasons behind, one in three adults nationwide weigh more than the military’s acceptance standard; one in six hasn’t graduated high school; one in ten has a criminal record that would prevent them from qualifying. The barriers are even higher for people of color, the report says: African-Americans are 18% less likely to graduate from high school on average, 41% more likely to be obese, and 29% more likely to have an arrest record than youth who are white the report says.
Such dangerous number could prove fatal with the rise of China, Iran and Russia already making geo-political statements in the Philippines, Ukraine, Yemen and Syria. Russia and China have more reserves and active soldiers combined than the US. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, China and Russia trail significantly behind the US in military expenditure, nevertheless Russia has focused on effective combat rather than on technology to counter US technology, and China’s Pentagon cyberattacks have allowed the Asian giant to manufacture similar combat hardware. The Nation reports that the rise of nationalism in Russia has been a potent force since the Russia-Ukraine conflict to help stir up patriotism. The same can be said of China, the Communist Party of China through Xi Jinping and Hu Jintao ended local corruption in 2008, reversed the communist central control, and gave rise to nationalism allowing financial growth and trade without collectivization at the expense of forced military drafts.
Interestingly according to an LA Times Special report 49% of the 1.3 million active-duty service members in the U.S. are concentrated in just five states — California, Virginia, Texas, North Carolina and Georgia. The disproportionate statistics show that southern states have a higher level of patriotism compared with the other 50 states. The NYT and the Atlantic reported the evident decline of American patriotism and nationalism. With the decline in nationalism, individual cynicism will split the nation ideologically like Spain before 1936.
The LA Times story also says the U.S. military today is gradually becoming a separate warrior class. Many analysts say that is becoming increasingly distinct from the public it is charged with protecting. “The last decade of war has affected the relationship between our society and the military,” Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in a commentary in 2013. “As a nation, we’ve learned to separate the warrior from the war. But we still have much to learn about how to connect the warrior to the citizen…. We can’t allow a sense of separation to grow between us.” Against the odds, such sense of separation could ultimately reconfigure America into a dictatorship, and abandon democracy to embark into a military state.
My conclusion of a military insurrection has started to slowly shed light in the past two years with increased public support. YouGov survey showed 29% of Americans could imagine supporting a military coup. The poll showed that one-third of Americans would support a coup against their own government. They found that 43% of Republicans would support a military coup in certain instances, while only 20% of Democrats and 29% of independents would. Such troublesome numbers continue to increase as the government, military and civilian population continue ideologically divided. As the number of people who support a military coup increases, so will the chances of a military government seizure be authorized by civilians.
Many outspoken millennials have torch a crusade to ignite rebellion against government and the military core not discerning between the decision maker and the loyal disciple – big mistake from a historical perspective. Ideological ghost have started to echo; anarchy, Marxism and communism dangerously toy along the inevitable collapse of the left, where ideological divisions in America will drive the nation into a new civil war under the next financial collapse. Just last year, the Eric Sheppard Challenge in social media to step on the US flag caused division among American patriots, veterans and soldiers. Thousands of American teens rushed to the streets and stomped on the American flag, some even burned flags in front of soldiers broadcasting their videos online. Such events to degrade military values have never occurred in the lifespan of US history. The pro-military groups fiercely challenged these groups with threats and reprisals.
The paradoxical question encompasses civil and political levels. What actions will military officials adopt to stop unwanted congressional acts and executive policy from targeting military values? How will the military and those who support it react at a civil level to stop anarchy driven by individuals that riot and burn military flags? This question could not only determine the nation’s future but the possibility that martial law might be the produce of a military up-rise to stop American progressives from taking control rather than one directed by huge financial corporations as most conspiracy theorist believe will happen — the latter something I don’t believe!
Comments Off on A dangerous game: A new America, one without democracy?
By Jaime Ortega.
As I predicted in 2014, the visible rise of conspiracy theories in social media has become a reliable indicator to the present untrustworthiness linking media, people and the political class. Everyone, including the avid political experts thought Jeb Bush conclusively bestowed the crown of choice amid republican loyalist before the race for the primaries started – not long after, he quit the race to the astonishment of Republican traditionalist.
The rise of Donald Trump comes as a desperate attempt by the middle class to feel represented in government against the evil forces of greed and corruption said to be responsible for unemployment and poverty in the US. The question remains whether the Republican Party will uphold a broker convention to hand Marco Rubio or speaker of the House Paul Ryan a bypass to defeat Trump given the nervous breakdown of the RNC.
Long gone the days when politicians and bureaucrats sold hope to voters to guarantee reelection. The consensus among the average US citizen is that the political class is crooked, dishonestly directed by financial elites. According to a recent poll conducted by The Daily Journalist up to 89% of US citizens distrust the government and up to 75% mistrust the media. The polls also shows that 81% view Republicans and Democrats equally untrustworthy.
According to Fox News, the reason why voters feel identified with Trump is because he taunts issues that resemble voter opinion and public concern, whereas the rest of republican candidates epitomize the current problem of the present-day establishment. The RNC has become so Anti-Trump and Anti-Cruz, that they have endorsed Marco Rubio the ideal Republican frontrunner, which has inevitably backfired with more public support leaning to Trump and Cruz.
Not withholding perspective, Donald Trump successfully swindled the political establishment focused in the weakness of the Obama administration, equally maximizing his attacks on political pundits that oppose his campaign. The GOP resentment toward Trump only holds testimony of his communicative prowess to resonate with voters to counter party critics – it is working.
Trump’s political affiliation should concern his most vocal advocates. He’s been a Democrat, an Independent, and even briefly according to CNN, Trump toyed with being a Reform Party candidate in 1999. Insofar Trump looks like an opportunist, who unexpectedly and against the odds, decided to join the Republican caucus to avert the nations financial and moral decline. According to Nick Glass from Politico, Trump spent years courting Hillary and other Democrats before joining the GOP. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner and former New York senator received donations from both Trump and Trump Jr. on separate occasions in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007, according to state and federal disclosure records. Trump brags about the fact that he is self-funding his campaign, but according to Politi Fact, Trump’s campaign isn’t 100 percent self-funded. Out of the $19.4 million he brought by the end of 2015, $13 million came out of pocket at 66 percent. 25.3 percent came out from small individual contributions, and 8.4 percent came from large individual contributions. It’s worth noting a couple of more caveats. First, Trump’s self-financing only picked up in the last three months of 2015. From the start of his campaign in April through October last year, individual contributions made up about 67 percent of total money raised for his campaign. But in the last quarter, Trump gave his campaign a $10.8 million loan, turning that balance around. The second caveat shows that the vast majority of Trump’s contributions to his own campaign about $12.6 million are loans rather than donations. Are interest groups now involved in Trump’s campaign considering his loans? Is Donald Trump an actor who is playing the republican side? What is his true political affiliation? Who is Donald Trump? It’s a mystery.
An economic wizard or the wizard of Oz?
Another mystery of the Trump campaign relates not to the sudden popularity avertedly linked with his uprising, but in how he plans to change the politburo on issues related with the economy. Trump is one of the few Republicans in the 2016 field who isn’t skeptical of the usefulness of a federal minimum wage, but he doesn’t think it should be increased from the current rate of $7.25 an hour, which could halt Obama’s recent plan to raise it to $9 an hour. The Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan research body of Congress, has said that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would likely cost half a million jobs, but it would also lift nearly a million Americans out of poverty. The Washington Post reported, that Trump plans to dramatically cut federal income taxes for all Americans — the question remains how? In 1999, Trump wanted to enact a 14.25% one-time tax on the wealthy. He hasn’t since spoken too much about it. In his 2011 book, “Time to Get Tough,” he outlined changes including the elimination of state taxes, corporate income taxes and lowering taxes on capital gains. In principle the idea sounds good, but experts say it would add heavily to the federal debt. His plan looks lucrative on paper, but considering the current US debt, and the living standards of many hard working Americans it seems like Trump’s faith in the economy is not short of fairy tales.
Trump and his spicy trade ordeal
Little if anything is known of his financial plan and how he plans to execute his reforms, a problem that ultimately should raise flags to his cohorts. If you want more details on how he’ll create millions of jobs, the only place to find them on his website is under “US China Trade Reform,” because “Jobs” is not on his list of six major policy areas. One way he wants to stop American companies from moving jobs overseas is to smack a 35 percent tax on goods moving into the US produced by Americans who have moved offshore. However, what Trump doesn’t say is that raising tariffs on goods coming into America will raise not only the prices of those goods, but many other prices as well. Mitt Romney said recently, that “If Donald Trump’s plan were ever implemented, the country would sink into a prolonged recession.” As CNN reported, such massive Tariff’s to China, Japan and Mexico could start a trade war. His plan to negotiate better deals and slapping tariffs by suggesting 25% tax tariffs on goods coming from China to the US will not only disgruntle the economy but slow down its growth. India also doubts Trump’s tariff strategy. Trump recently said “If you look at the way China and India and almost everyone takes advantage of the US, is something disgraceful – China in particular because they’re so good.” According to the First Post, some Indians are worried that the same policy Trump intends to introduce to China, might likewise include India, which could directly hit US interest with another trade war. The worrisome part is that Trumps myopic plan hides other social cultural problems that affect individual Americans, as I reported with the problems of integrating socialism in America.
Russian roulette policy?
The most worrisome side of Trump, is that he openly states on his state rallies that he doesn’t want to broadcast his intentions to remain unpredictable. But should his foreign policy remain undisclosed? Bellow a few examples of what Americans could expect from Trump if he won the presidency. Trump said in Fox News during President Xi Jinping’s most recent visit to the US, that it was a disgrace how kindly Obama treated his Chinese counterpart. Trump also suggested that if he was president, in the next Chinese premier visit to the US, he would skip the filet mignon and buy him a two dollar cheeseburger. Mexico also ranks high on Trumps list of dubious foreign relations. Trump stressed the idea that Mexico pay for his new protective wall to secure the US border against illegal immigrants and drug dealers. Mexican president Pena Nieto adamant to respond to Trumps silly idea compared him to Benito Mussolini, “That’s how Mussolini came to power and that’s how Hitler came to power,” adding “they took advantage of public discontent and eventually started a world war.” Nieto believes common sense will prevail in Washington DC, by the end of November when the next American president is elected. Albeit Obama’s relation with Russia pend suspended and in state of animosity thanks to the recent events involving Syria, Ukraine, Crimea and most recently Turkey’s Russian aircraft incident; Russian Premier Vladimir Putin has endorsed Trump for president saying that, “Donald Trump is a really brilliant and talented person, without any doubts. He says he wants to move on to a new, more substantial relationship, a deeper relationship with Russia, who cannot welcome that?” he said. “Of course we welcome that.” To finalize, Trump is more concerned with Pakistan than North Korea, and Iran. Trump’s remarks of Pakistan could set India in a dangerous power vacuum on South East Asia. Trump said on Fox News, that Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world and in order to remain in check, “India should get involved in case war broke out.” In all, it seems as if foreign leaders except Putin (known for his diplomatic ends) view Trump like a problem maker, rather than a problem solver.
Comments Off on Donald Trump, not America’s best choice
By Jaime Ortega.
I am not a socialist and I am not pro-capitalist. I grew up inside a democratic socialist country and saw the ups and downs of the system. Socialism in itself is not a bad concept, and some programs should be adapted into the system, but oscilating in all fairness and without bias, socialism is not the cure of America’s troubles. Socialism if nothing, is the excuse, of America’s own guilt.
There is little to no doubt that the unrestrained boom-bust cycles of capitalism echoed in the 2007 stock market crisis have dented the US economy. The headache partly started for the lack thereof to avoid regulating the risky fiscal-asymmetry credit default swaps in the mortgage and hedge fun markets carried since former president Bill Clinton repealed Glass Steagall when he signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act. The FDIC since, failed to constrain the modus-operanti scheme banks abused by jerking proprietary trade — tax evasion and loopholes are part of such peril as even billionaire Warren Buffet claims to pay less in income taxes than his secretary which include capital gains. The Internal Revenue Service contends that the top 10 percent of earners paid 68 percent of all federal taxes in 2011 (latest stat available), though they earned 45 percent of all income. So technically the 1 percent of the 10 percent have increasingly done better and the rest have not — but are wealthy individuals at fault for the current state of the economy? One could accuse quants, others could accuse diligence-under writers; others could blame rating agencies like Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s or contend the fact that synthetic CDO’s were permissible legal forms of trade during the Bush and Clinton administration, but they are other factors at bay the political class frightens to discuss. Despite the great recession, the following GDP growth in states like North Dakota 6.3%, Texas 5.2%, West Virginia 5.1%, Wyoming 5.1%, Colorado 4.7%, Oregon 3.6%, Utah 3.1%, Washington 3.0% and many other states show optimistic levels of recovery in the economy — even as late as 2013, New York City was one of top ten booming cities. However, they are other cities like Detroit and Chicago that have declared bankruptcy, but overall the nation has surprisingly recovered.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was not a socialist
Socialism is an economic system that comprises social ownership and controls the means of production and cooperative management of the economy. Democratic Socialism only differs with conventional socialism in that there is greater participation in the ballot box. FDR was no socialist, he was a pragmatist. With the ‘New Deal’ he applied the Keynesian model of economics to endow the government with enhanced ability to regulate the means of production than about actually transferring ownership of means of production to social organizations such as unions. Having the burden to cope with years that followed the Great Depression, when FDR headed to office he tried anything that he thought would help. A socialist would have adopted policies that would have allowed government to take on critical industries, whereas FDR spent a lot of tax payer money on temporary public work projects like building dams and roads. By doing so he brought capitalism back to life in the US giving leeway to the Great 50’s. In the end what took America out of the Great Depression was not FDR’s charisma, but the incredible American workforce that worked up to 21 hours per day seeking any available job to survive only to indirectly rebuilt the economy under the patronage of nationalism to resurge from its ashes. Such unity, work ethic and mentality no longer exist.
For socialism to effectively work, it has to comprise a strong working class. Millions of Americans don’t want to take on lower income jobs. Unlike the days of the Great Depression where Americans worked any job to survive even at the cost of travelling across the country to meet the next opportunity, today Americans with no skills would rather take a job in Footlocker and avoid working as a dishwasher. The Law known as HB56 intended to scare off undocumented workers, has affected many farm owners that are struggling to find replacements in places like Alabama, Wisconsin, New York and almost every state that contract illegal workers. Even paying American citizens wages up to $17-$20 that include health benefits to work the fields to replace the undocumented, these quit given the labors hardship. Many farm owners not only are witnessing the destruction of their crops, but pressuring state laws to allow illegal immigrants to come back and work. Just in the strawberry industry, 1/3 of crops were lost in Alabama because Americans workers were not capable of keeping with deadlines thus hurting the economy. But it doesn’t end with the farming sector, this situation is palpable in construction, textiles, services, agriculture and most lower income sectors. If increasing the minimum wage was not enough to seduce American citizens to take on lower income jobs, will socialism really work? The same can be said with higher education. As the Population Reference Bureau showed in 2009, more US scientist and engineers are foreign born. 60 percent of foreign born scientist and engineers in the US where from Asia. Whereas Americans are taking on easier college majors like psychology, arts, public affairs and philosophy to name a few, new immigrants are taking careers that help the economy grow during times of recession. No one needs philosophers or movie critics during a financial recovery. To issue further, 90 percent of students that attend Harvard are Asians not to mention other Ivy League schools, so the whole dynamic of education contradicts the popular conception of reality. Ultimately, economic growth has attacked native born workers and the shift has increased to triple digits since 2009. The middle class is shifting to new ethnic Americans who take advantage of the system where many Americans slack. During the Cold War, American citizens were heavily involved in science majors and took on much harder college courses. Those who had no skills worked low income jobs without feeling presumptuous to pick certain jobs based on citizen entitlement. No politician has addressed such issue, and Bernie Sanders is no different. The new generation of Americans overall have slacked to compete with new American ethnic groups hungry to succeed in lower and upper sectors of the economy.
It is impossible for socialism to work in America mainly because the culture itself throughout its recent history has spoiled citizens to forbid financial sacrifices to adopt a lavish consuming lifestyle. Unlike in Europe where individuals in most Mediterranean and Northern countries on average per capita save their money, Americans prefer to waste it only to buy themselves back to poverty without properly investing in their future. The African American community resembles more than any other integrated ethnic group the problem with many Americans. When first generation immigrants from countries like China, India and Africa to name a few restart their lives in America, they settle in low income areas. After many years of struggle, hard work, determination and sacrifice they eventually leave the projects and move to higher income areas. So how is it that Chinese people are capable of moving up the scale and start their own business coming from the bottom-end; whereas, many African Americans stay stuck in the system? Most projects have public libraries, but these are almost empty. The same issue resembles high income areas, where public libraries show low signs of inactivity. Most young millennials are not taking advantage of the system and are not interested in doing so, but they have all the resources available to progress. It is common to see low income African American teens spend $150 in a brand new pair of Jordan’s, but across the street the Goodwill thrift store books sell for $2.50, that range from math to history subjects and rarily get purchased. Every day alone according to the US Department of Education 7,000 student’s drop out of high school, and every year this results in 1.2 million. The fact that these new immigrants are taking advantage of the system and Americans are not, shows the decadence and failure to address the real issues taking place in the US. How will socialism change the problem, when the resources are already available and native born American’s don’t take advantage of the free system? I am all for free college (go Bernie!), but if people are already dropping free education at a basic entry level, would free college suddenly break the deadlock? Don’t bet on it!
Greed starts at the grassroots
During the 2008 bailout people blamed the government for all their problems, but is government responsible for people’s greedy decisions? Let’s face it, even though banks legally played the system, they never forced anyone to sign mortgage loans. Common sense indicates that when anyone signs an agreement (especially with banks), one ought to check with a microscope the terms and conditions regardless of how tempting the loan might present itself. Many Americans rejected such loans, but a significant percentage paid no attention or raised an eyebrow of suspicion. Just like the Hansel and Gretel story, greed took the children to follow the witch who showed them a house made of chocolate, and ate without thinking the risk or consequences involved in their actions. The people responsible for signing these mortgage agreements, knowing their precarious financial condition were ultimately responsible for the risks they took and should be held accountable for their decision considering no bank pointed a gun at their head and said ‘sign the damn contract’; quite contrary people rushed to the banks to finance their new luxurious house without questioning the consequences of their decision. The outlook also applies with healthcare. Millions of Americans live an unhealthy lifestyle unwilling to sacrifice their addictive behavior to better their condition. Why should tax payers pay more taxes to support individuals who won’t quit smoking, but complain they want more health benefits after developing lung cancer? Why should tax payers pay universal health coverage to alcoholics and drug users who care not to develop health diseases? Or the lady or the gentlemen who could easily help himself by eating a vegetarian diet and drink water instead of drinking sugar pop, eat unhealthy meals, plus smoking, plus drinking? They are 119,487 libraries in the US scattered throughout 50 states, why are native people not taking advantage of education, but foreigners and new born immigrants? Would a significant percentage of America’s lower income youth start going to libraries, purchase free books online, buy $2.50 books in thrift stores and save their money instead of buying a brand new pair of new Jordan’s, the latest IPhone 6 or the newest Play station, if Sanders sat in office? Will socialism end instant gratification and individual greed? No politician has spoken such truth, people are just as greedy as government but won’t acknowledge it and instead point the finger to avoid responsibility. Bottom line is that no one wants to commit sacrifices but expect the world in return.
What about efficiency?
Make no doubts technology has crippled employment, ‘capital hypermobility’ continues to worsen. Companies like Smiths, Kroger’s, Giant Eagle, Savons, Target, Safeway, and Walmart among thousands of other companies have invested in “self-check-out” machines to avoid employing people, in order to maximize efficacy without relying on human resources. From Redbox to New York’s MTA MetroCard vending machines, technology has subtly replaced workers, especially at the industrial-manufacturing level. According to the CATO institute in 1983 the Upjohn Institute of Employment Research Forecast confirmed the existence of 50,000 to 100,000 robots in the US by 1990, resulting in a net loss of some 100,000 jobs. Larry summers latest interview with The Washington Post estimates that in the 1960’s about 1 in 20 men between the age of 25 and 54 was not working. Today, the number is more like 1 in 6. According to Erik Brynjolfsson a professor at the MIT Sloan School of management, rapid technological change has destroyed jobs faster than it is creating them, contributing to the stagnation median income and the growth of inequality in the United States. To aggravate the problem, many companies in the agricultural sector are relying on technology to cope with demand and supply to produce goods at a higher ratio. During the recovery of the Great Depression, the industrial bonanza did not have the sophistication of today’s age. Would socialism really fix such problem? Surely Bernie Sanders alike the rest of candidates have not addressed this issue. If you really care, its simple! Boycott technology, and demand human labor instead, but don’t complain if prices soar during the transition.
Why encourage the local economy, when I have the whole world….
Globalization has not only hurt the local economy, but has incrementally tarnish the competiveness of local retail shops to the point of riling the US market. Why buy a product in my home state at a higher price, when I can shop online in E-Bay, Ali-Baba or Amazon and purchase that same product for a cheaper deal? The bankruptcy of companies like Circuit City, Marvel and Blockbuster Videos show the menace that online shopping possesses to disfigure the local economy. According to MSNBC, the brick-and-mortar firms are struggling to keep pace with online service. Tim Worstall a Forbes economist stated on one of his recent articles that online shopping is “killing” malls, adding “there’s 1,200 vacant malls in the US, of those perhaps 15% are 30-50% vacant.” Not to mention that illegal downloading has had a tremendous toll in world markets, especially in the US. SOPA and PIPA argue that online piracy is a huge problem, one which cost the U.S. economy between $200 and $250 billion per year, and it’s responsible for the loss of 750,000 American jobs that according to the Diplomatic Courier have affected a sector that comprises a total of 2.4 million technicians, editors, producers, hair stylist, and camera operators. Once again, is the solution towards uplifting the US economy a socialist system? Will socialism tax e-commerce to help local markets? Will socialism stop illegal downloading? The answers is no, unless of course, the government that is supposed to work for the people plans to revolutionize online usage which would violate the bill of rights of many Americans – in other words, the perfect way to not get reelected.
It’s easier said than done
America like the rest of the world is financially bonded with China. The World Trade Organization latest 2013 report that Chinese exports equate to $2.209 trillion. 16.7% of these exports went to the US. The WTO also reports 94% of the $2.209 trillion were manufacturing goods. In 2013 US reported imports of goods from China of $440.447 billion. The problem with such statistic is that the US resource-manufacture bond between the two countries is so tight, that it would destroy and further increase the US debt to China and destroy the US economy under a resilient socialist takeover. According to the New York Times foreign companies are a key part of US employment and contract 5.3 million Americans. If indeed socialism starts to own industry will it not conflict with foreign companies who wont accept a takeover? How will that affect US workers working for these companies? The issue also includes US debt to Japan and India alongside with other countries widening concerns, but if that wasn’t enough, the US owes more money to itself than to any other country, and the numbers point close to 16 Trillion. If the US pulls into a socialist backyard, even more manufacturers and businesses will flee the country threatened by a takeover. Will a socialist government set an embargo and boycott China without significant side effects in the US economy? Will Americans who vote for Sanders or even Donald Trump, stop purchasing Chinese made products to help local employment grow? It’s a complete fiasco and no socialist government in Europe has ceased their addiction to China and neither will the US. It’s easier said than done.
What type of socialism clone the US?
If the US models itself after the fingerprints of Denmark, what guarantees can the new social democratic government promise that the experiment won’t turn into a Mediterranean socialist economy like Italy, Spain, Ireland, France and Portugal renowned for corruption? Since the US economy has already shown steady signs of recovery at state level, should risking a new federal socialist system ponder a greater risk at this point? Cross your fingers because the chances point to greater economic backlash. Socialism works under certain circumstances — none which pertain to America!
Comments Off on Democratic socialism won’t solve America’s problem
By The Daily Journalist.
London Mayor Boris Johnson has challenged Prime Minister David Cameron and decided to campaign for the departure of the country to the European Union, according to the BBC.
The decision of Johnson, considered the most aspiring succession
Cameron, opens a veritable “civil war” within the Conservative Party and seriously complicates the strategy of the British ‘premier’, who on Sunday launched a final appeal to his fellow television.
In brief remarks at the gates of his home in London, Johnson said his decision was “maddeningly difficult” and had caused “headaches”. “The last thing I want is to go against David Cameron or against the government,” he said. “But I want a better deal for the people of this country, to save money and to take control. A new relationship with Europe based more on trade and cooperation, and less on the supranational element.”
“I would tell Boris the same thing I tell anyone, “Cameron confessed before the cameras of the BBC. “We will be safer, will be stronger and we will do better economically in the EU (…) The possibility of joining politicians like Ukip leader Nigel Farage or former Labour George Galloway would be like taking a leap in the dark wrong for our country “.
But Johnson already had a vote decided step. In full countdown negotiations, Johnson met secretly with Justice Minister Michael Gove, who on Saturday broke ranks with Cameron (along with five other members of the cabinet) and added to the “Vote Leave” campaign.
In his statement to the media, the mayor of London, which claims to have invented the word “Eurosceptic”, said that “there is a supreme judicial body, the European court of justice, which projects its decisions on an area with 500 million people. It is a single judicial body against which there is no appeal possible. In my opinion, this is out of control.
” Days earlier, Johnson had already noted that “we must not be afraid of leaving the EU” and left a meeting “in extremis” in Downing Street saying that the agreement negotiated the ‘premier’ was not ‘enough’.
“this will not be a debate about whether or not you love Europe. In fact, I love Brussels I lived there, and I love European culture, I consider it the greatest civilization that produced this planet, but not to be confused with the wonders of Europe, European holidays, fantastic food and friendships with a political project, “said the mayor.
Your decision was explained in his weekly column in the Daily Telegraph, which has started a countdown on its website to the expectations. Analysts believe that the “Johnson factor” may amount to 15 points in the polls and eliminate the difference which had supporters remaining in the final of the 23-J.El referédum bass beat Johnson conceded Cameron within hours of the first poll after its agreement with Brussels, published by the Mail on Sunday, “which gave a temporary 15-point lead over the Eurosceptics (48% to 33%).
Comments Off on Boris Johnson wants EU exit
Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.
He used to be the Religious Director and Imam of the Islamic Society of Triplex (Beaumont, TX) till he appeared on Hannity Show on Fox on December 9th, 2015 . He has over 15 years of combined experience in Islamic capital markets, Shari’ah Fiqh rulings, and Islamic Financial Transactions (Islamic Law). He was a senior contract research officer at Central Bank Malaysia (ISRA), the Director of educational and technology services at Effat University, Saudi Arabia, senior financial advisor at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter (Chicago, IL).
1. You spoke in support of Donald Trump regarding his strategy to bill a temporary ban on Muslims from overseas coming to US soil. What exactly made you support Trump? Do you think the media blew Trumps remarks out of proportion?
Simply because we are dealing with the unknown and safety is a priority. Safety comes before Islam. I totally believe the media tried under value his statement, while they know it being unprecedented and courageous to express the issue at this level of his prudential campaign!
2. Most Syrian refuges come to America to escape the civil war. How can the US Immigration and Costumes clearly identify Syrian refugees who are not part of a terrorist cell?
It is not possible. Mistakes can still happen and the cost is lives. Intelligence can minimize the possibility of getting like those suspicious radicalized individuals, but terrorists sleeping cells are almost impossible to detect…
3. Do you believe or know other Imams in America that also support your stance and agree with Trump?
I do for sure know some; but the problem they cannot speak publically! Not everyone can easily afford losing his job!
4.Do you believe they are mosques in America that teach against western values and call for violence?
I believe they are not teaching any American values…and that will result in something similar to violence and more in extreme cases.
5. They are many branches of Islam in America, some even American born like Nation of Islam (NOI), which branches of Islam could possibly present a contradictory view against the US constitution? Would people that support Wahabism and Salafi doctrines be more likely to have a radical view of American politics?
Mostly the isolated branches and subgroups that are not part of major known group (like Wahabi or Salafi…etc.)…basically they branch out and create their own version of believe, that is why I am saying it is complicated …
6. Have a lot of people threaten you? Are they mostly Muslims or from other religious backgrounds?
At least 6 anonymous number till now! 100% Muslims.
7. Before you were forced to leave the Islamic Center of Triplex in Beaumont Texas, how was your relationship with your superiors? Why did they get so upset with you? Do you think it’s constitutionally fair under the right of freedom of speech to discharge from your job based on your opinion?
Relationship was perfect. The only reason they were upset (especially the most influential member of them) is due to the fact that my view point about insuring safety of our people happened to agree with Trump and they are supporting the Hilary Clinton campaign.
8. Does the Islamic Center of Triplex believe in the American constitution based upon your experience?
They agree to it in form; but not necessarily in substance!
9. What message does it send to Americans the fact that you got threaten by an American-Muslims association for not violating the first amendment? Are Americans going to be more suspicious about Muslim radical dogmas after you got fired from your job?
Simply that they have no tolerance to differences of opinions and the inherent violent characteristics. They better be careful too.
10. The Muslim Brotherhood owns MSA, CAIR, MAS, NAIT, ISNA and other Islamic organizations inside America. Does the Muslim Brotherhood also have links with ICT?
Not necessarily owned by the Muslim Brotherhood as far as I know. The problem it is hard to tell who is moderate and who is not!
11. What is the best way to stop the radical indoctrination of Islam to young Muslims living in America?
To intensify education and knowledge and create a government organization (entity) that can regulate their affairs and programs.
Comments Off on Imam Nidal Alsayyed explains why he got fired from his organization
Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.
She is a research analyst at the Carnegie Middle East Center. She is a political scientist with expertise in jihadism, political violence, extremist violence, and terrorism, with a focus on Algeria.
1. ISIL has successfully expanded in Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Nigeria and as far as Afghanistan. Has ISIL expanded to other lesser known Muslims countries like Oman, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan or any other? Is that a possibility?
Well what is interesting in your question is the countries or location in which IS expended to. Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Nigeria are all examples of “failed states”. IS took advantage of the chaos in these countries to have a foothold and expend. Libya is a good example. The fall of Gaddafi in 2011 and the political chaos lead to the creation of a plethora of militias and terrorist groups that took advantage of the porousness of the borders to smuggle drugs, weapons, humans and so on.
This allowed them to gain money in order to support themselves and to expand their network in the Sahel region. The post-Gaddafi situation helped IS to mushroom and gain foothold in Libya. In countries like Algeria where there is a “strong state” and a merciless security mechanism, IS could not survive. The proof is that its Algerian offshoot, called “jund El Khilafa” that kidnapped French national Hervé Gourdel in the mountains of Kabilya, was eliminated less than three months after the killing. The group that replaced the first one was also eliminated in a few days. That shows that IS cannot survive in such an environment.
What we might witness is the creation of small cells that will declare allegiances to IS and will try to perform low scale/high impact attacks. However, an expansion of IS in countries such as Algeria is very hard to see. In addition, the makeup of the population can play a role, in Algeria for instance IS cannot play on the binary polarization Sunni/Shia because 99% of the population is Sunni. In short, I do believe that IS real power is not in its military capacities but in its capacities in the virtual sphere.
To discuss its capacities in Eurasia, it is the same situation, IS will try to take advantage of “weak states” and will capitalize on the local frustrations. For instance, in Afghanistan there is a group that called itself IS that is essentially composed of former disaffected Taliban that rebranded themselves to “galvanize” the youth and recruit more. In Tajikistan, a cell was discovered lately that was planning to attack the internal affairs ministry.
What worries me more is the foreign fighter who went to Syria and will eventually come back in their motherland. To keep with the Tadjik example, there is today around 700 Tadjik fighters in Syria who are more likely to “import” “jihadism” to their country. This applies also to the Uzbeks who has participated in the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and have an extensive warfare knowledge. Therefore, there is a risk for this region for sure. The returnees can affect heavily the security of this region.
IS organization will try constantly with these cells to destabilize the central Asia because in its ideology it is its “duty” to target these communist “impious” states and to target Baku, Moscow and Tbilisi. What constitutes also a danger is the porousness of the borders especially for the countries that shares borders with Afghanistan.
In addition, one should note that the IS organization is not the only one that is attracting foreign fighter from this part of the world. Jabhat el nusra is also recruiting especially among the Chechen. It is possible that two organizations that are enemies in Syria and Iraq, decide – for the sake of the “cause” – to cooperate in the Caucasus region.
2. Not long after the ISIS massacre in Paris, Al-Qaeda attacked Mali. Are both groups competing for supremacy in the world?
There is a competition between the two for the monopoly of jihadism. The biggest competition relies in their capacity to mobilize and galvanize, so recruiting and in their prestige. Al Qaida is not attracting as much people as it used to do and in this regard IS beats it. IS knows that its biggest arsenal is not the military one but the media and it made a very smart use of it. This is the first time in history that we see an organization mastering the media to that extent and that built such a powerful communication strategy. The latest attack in Bamako right after the Beirut and Paris attack shows this logic of rivalry.
However, the targets are very important in these attacks because by contrast to IS that attacked civilians and massacred them in both Beirut and Paris; the attack in Bamako was more “targeted” in a way. This is for Al Qaida the only way to show that they disapprove IS and its “takfiri” approach and they are different because they do not practice indiscriminate violence (at least not anymore). Al Qaida even in the Maghreb is trying to focus the fight against non-Muslims and they’ve been criticizing the IS as being “deviant organization and takfiri”.
IS is for the moment winning: we can see it only in its ability to mobilize even in territories as far as Europe and the US. IS has territories, army and a very sophisticated communication strategy that made Al Qaida a total “has been” in that regard. IS is a brand that is so well-known and “prestigious” that even groups as far as Boko Haram in Nigeria pledged allegiance to it. Now it is more “fashion” and “appealing” to fight under the banner of IS. However, Al Qaida has still a certain “aura”: it is after all the “mother” of IS and the organization that made the biggest terrorist attack against the West that is 9/11. Therefore, what we might see is the outburst of a deadly competition between the two in specific regions of the world for the monopoly of jihadism, hence more attacks and more victims.
3. Have Al-Shabab and Boko Haram pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda or ISIL? Why have they made that choice?
Yes as I said it above, Boko Haram pledged allegiance to IS and a faction of al Shabab declared allegiance to IS also in November 2015. Why? Because IS is a “fashionable brand”, because IS organization is like any other brand (coca cola or MacDonald). Groups that nobody hear of or that are in need of a good publicity, use the IS franchise in order to boost their prestige, reputation, hence recruits and source of funding. It is a stylish brand and organization that has terrorized the West and the Arab world but also has a territory, a flag, an anthem and currency (the golden Dinar), this is appealing for jihadist groups in need of recognition and prestige.
4. Chechen, Bosnian and Kosovo fighters have been recruited to fight with different jihadist groups. Why have Al-Qaeda and ISIS successfully drafted some many eastern European radicals?
The recruits are not only from Eastern Europe, they are from central Europe, the Caucasus region, the US and so on. The drivers are multidimensional and entangled. Every life story is unique. However, the main drivers can be: religious motivation, fighters claim to want to “glorify the word of God on earth” or to demonstrate “their love for God and the desire of raising the banner of Islam.” However, it is very hard to understand and authenticate their degree of faith. In my opinion, religion has less to do with their engagement. It more of ideological motivation: IS ideology that is based on binary polarization and a very Manichean vision but also absolutism, threat and hate is very powerful.
The different conflicts in the world are presented by IS as an ultimate evidence of the oppression of the Muslim Community. These people want to “make a difference” and to contribute to the glory of the Muslims by performing the “Hidjra” and fighting in the “name of Allah”. There is also philosophical motivations such as self-seeking: many these men and even women (there is approximately 550 Western women in IS-held territories) joined Islamic State-held territories because they were in need of an identity or because their desire for status within their society was hindered or could not be achieved in Western societies. Joining IS, a jihadist group that is feared and respected by many is the means by which they intend to acquire “status”. Joining IS transformed what they perceived as a “purposeless life” to a life of devotion to the establishment of the Caliphate.
The jihadist organization gives them a “positive image” of themselves that their families and societies failed to give. Another motives is the desire to live in a “perfect community”: thanks to its powerful communication strategy, IS succeeded in depicting IS-held territories as “pure societies” in which social justice and equity are a reality. Once in IS-held territories, the individual forget about himself, he is a “born-again” and all what matters is the “brothers and sisters of the Caliphate”, it is the birth of the “we-feeling”. Finally, a driver that many researchers has forgotten about is the social connections. Families, friends and mentors as “sponsors’ integrator”.
Being related in one way or another to a person engaged in IS or convinced by IS ideology can indeed boost “predispositions” for joining the group. In other words, social connections are key to transforming one’s “predispositions” into action (such as in the cases of the Halane twins or the friends: Amira Abase, Shamima Begum and Khadiza Sultana). The family ties also play an important role once in IS-held territories because they are an “antidote” to defections. Indeed, it is harder to leave an organization in which your brother, cousin or friend is.
5. Is there any other terrorist group outside of ISIS and Al-Qaeda that poses a high security threat for the West? Is there a group called Khorasan?
Well the name does not really matters because at the end of the day, it is an Al Qaida affiliate. This Khorasan group was created by Al Qaida and composed from top leaders of the group in Syria. The objective of the group is to attack the West and concentrate efforts on the West only. What is their strike force? No one can tell. However, what matters is the fact that it is an al Qaida affiliate and that they are going to focus their attacks on the West, so the security services should pay attention to them and not underestimate them as they did with IS since 2003.
6. After the assassination of Osama Bin laden led by US forces, the shift turned to eliminate Al-Baghdadi making Ayman Al-Zawahiri Al-Qaeda leader get less spotlight. Any recent news on Al-Zawahiri ?
Not that I know. However, I think it is a mistake not to pay enough attention to him because he was and remain the ideologue of Al Qaida. The US should focus on him and on the military commander of Al Qaida Khaled El Habib (who was declared dead but is not). Al Qaida is still present and capable to strike at any time.
7. Some US Intelligence sources affirm Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain are secretly supporting ISIS. Is this true? Are they supporting Al-Qaeda?
It is very hard to check these claims.
8. Unlike the past, Al-Qaeda and ISIS now control swaths of territory; whereas, before they remained in the shadows fighting in secrecy. They also control petroleum and sell it in the black market, not relying exclusively on foreign fundraisers to build their military infrastructure. Has that changed the outcome of the war against terror? Does Al-Qaeda also have their own way of supporting themselves without fundraisers?
Al Qaida has its own way of financing itself. Al Qaida in the Maghreb for instance support itself by the kidnapping, smuggling and trafficking drogue, cigarettes, weapon and people (human traffic). The drogues for instance comes from Latin America to Niger and Mali and then it goes to Europe through Morocco. It is hard to give numbers but it is a very lucrative activity. The fall of Gaddafi in 2011 exacerbate the situation on the borders that are very poorly controlled.
9. Despite Russia’s military strength, can Russia really stop jihadist in Syria considering the Soviet Union lost the war in Afghanistan?
I do not think that fighting IS from 30,000 feet is the solution anyway. I believe that as long as the international community (that is only 10 countries) is not capable of finding a realistic political solution to the Syrian problem, IS will remain. In addition, we need to work on the ground, not by sending ground troops but by helping the local population fight IS and by providing an alternative: an alternative for IS idea but also an alternative for IS “governance”.
10. ISIS and Al-Qaeda are currently drafting tens of thousands of children to fight a future jihad against the west. It looks as if the west after decades trying to contain radical Islam, has not just failed, but helped to create a larger menace that will not stop at anything. What holds the future?
Again, to contain radical Islamism and salafi-jihadism we need to give people an alternative; we need to have a counter-narrative to convince them because it is a war of ideas. It is a war of propaganda and IS is a 2.0 jihadist group that is mastering and winning this war. IS capacities lies more on the virtual sphere than on the ground. Military solutions are not enough; they can help but are not going to solve the problem. The Arab world is experiencing major changes and military answer will only bring back the country of the Arab spring to the previous situation of dictatorship.
Each country has its own complex political landscape and we need to consider that when drafting recommendations and solution. We need to work with the civil society and not against it. Reform the educational system in both the MENA but also in the West in order to offer youth a real perspective so they will not chose a “jihadist career”. The west and countries like France for instance need to review their system of integration toward the emigrant population and include these second and third generation (especially those coming from North African countries) into the political and social life of their countries so they will have a sense of belonging and a “positive identity” thanks to which they will feel like genuine citizens and not second zone ones.
Today there is two lost generations: the children who are going to evolve in IS held territories and whose mothers and fathers are IS followers and the entire generation of Syrian who is now in camps around Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and so on and who is a lost generation cause they have no future and are the targets of extremist groups that want to recruit them into jihadist organizations.
Comments Off on Expert answers questions about ISIS and Al-Qaeda’s expansion
By Jaime Ortega.
Muslim prayer in the middle of Parisian street.
Muslims are accountable for not containing radical Islam in the Middle East and Europe. The notion in western countries is that even though moderate Muslims condemn terrorist attacks conducted by radical jihadist like the recent massacre in Paris and Mali, they don’t necessarily go out their way to tackle the problem.
Little by little with each terrorist act Islam has started to mount defiance in Europe crumbling in popularity and sprouting hate among fellow European progressives who once advocated for Muslim tolerance in western lands.
Paradoxically, the few Muslims that openly denounce terrorist attacks in small scale street demonstrations holding peace banners in the name of Islam are not the ones protesting against foreign occupation, leaving behind visible gaps of political infirmity and division that peril Islam in Europe and the US.
It’s no mystery that over the past two decades western foreign intervention in the Middle East has stirred up negativity between secular Muslims, Arab nationalist and religious Muslims residing in European lands and abroad; in the Muslim world, Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel lead the stage of controversial occupations; on the other hand, Arabs who are non religious or might represent a different creed tend to have different views that don’t represent the global outlook of most Muslims toward democracy and western interventionism.
All together Yarizis, Alowites, Zoroastrians, Manicheans, Sabadeans, Orthodox Christians, Coptics, Catholics and other Middle Eastern religious minorities have historically adopted a defensive stance against an overwhelming Muslim majority to secure their cultural survival; therefore, they’re more forthcoming when other western cultures directly intervene on Arab affairs.
Muslims wholeheartedly believe Palestinian occupation by Israel is the direct result of western imperialism, in particular US oppression on Muslim lands; whereas, the Palestinian Christians that precede Islamism in history, who mostly migrated to the US during the Arab-Israeli war, view Israel not the problem in Palestine but the root cause for westernization, democracy and progress on Arab lands.
Hence, how Muslims denote the Middle East as “Muslim lands”, while other religious Arabs that precede Islam by many centuries prefer to name it “Arab lands.” This problem and never ending conflict is unlikely to change anytime soon between radical Hamas and Israel for the reason that it’s a religious struggle rather than a political discrepancy.
But in contrast what is Muslim extremism as a whole trying to achieve in Europe and all over the world? To impose Sharia-Law in western governments and use democracy as the precursor to gateway ideological radicalism into the system and further political advantage that favors the implementation of Islamic dogmas. For most radical Muslims the ultimate dream would be to Islamisize Europe and the world to obtain a caliphate.
This advantageous usage of democracy became apparent during the democratic elections in Egypt and Libya after the turbulent Arab Spring that general Kalifa Hafta and Al-Sisi successfully thwarted by overseen the smoldering of the Islamic Brotherhood over seculars in both countries.
Even close ties with radical Islamic groups can present challenges. In Pakistan, the government once allied with Al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban through ISI (Pakistani intelligence) to defend its interest in Afghanistan from India’s territorial expansion, is now using the police to fight the TTP after the school bombings in Peshawar that killed 128 infants.
Turkey under Erdogan, once supporting ISIL and Al-Nusra to fight Iraqi and Syrian Kurds has also fallen prey to fray between radical jihadists after the bombing of a peaceful political demonstration in the border with Iraq that caused 30 fatalities.
First it is apparent that the intentions of tolerant Muslims in the Middle East to reform government via political diplomacy are in disguise with reality. Secondly, moderate Muslims cannot domestically curtail the advancement of Islamic extremism within the framework of their national struggle to peacefully coexist without sectarian violence.
In other words, secular and moderate Muslims are completely apprehensive to radical Islamism; they have proven to have no firm grasp in containing religious groups that sponsor Jihad which constantly menace national security in Europe.
The Muslim Student Association even though it does not openly sponsor radical extremism is notoriously known for not condemning and cutting ties with radical fundamentalist groups that fund its initiative. These Muslim secular-moderates ultimately fare off as incompetent, weak and bias toward the permeation of radical Islam worldwide. Only hardcore liberals believe these groups don’t present a challenge for national security.
Secular Muslim emancipation in the Arab Spring led to Islamic radicalism which ramified into dictatorships and sectarian divisions. Moderate Muslims that reside in European countries have to rise against Muslim extremism before events worsen and lead to the expulsion and even persecution of Muslims in Europe observed during the 15th century Inquisition.
While Islam is losing popularity among Europeans, persecution in the long run can be avoided only if secular and moderate Muslims start to cut ties with religious extremist groups alongside individuals that fund jihadist propaganda. It is Muslims, not Europeans who have to fight back against religious lunatics because ultimately it is their religion that has caused widespread of hate amid western civilization.
Should liberal activist defend Islam?
Many liberal progressives in the western world try to protect the religious rights of Muslims in Europe and the US by pushing laws that prevent discrimination. They advocate for laws which determine tolerance under the banner of political correctness, thus why, most retail stores inside of Malls instead of saying “Merry Christmas” put signs that read “Happy Holliday’s” not to hurt other religious groups.
Given the status of Middle Eastern sectarian politics and the bigotry reflected in opposing basic western freedoms which include mistreatment of secular activist; it is astounding how liberal progressives could simply ignore the role Islamic religion plays in the Middle East, neglecting, persecuting and even beheading people opposed to their religious view.
Liberals project social liberties supported by organizations that protect basic individual freedoms. These freedoms include protecting the rights of homosexuals, lesbians, transgender, atheist, animals, the environment and many other civil liberties. Islam would not only eradicate western civil rights under Sharia-law, but would put to death those that advocate or practice such laws because in Islam it is forbidden.
The irony is that Muslim activist, like Mohammed Morsi’s 2012 ‘Freedom and Justice Party’ used secular Egyptian liberals to access power democratically. Once he won the elections, Morsi and FJP started to abuse constitutional reforms and started to win seats in congress in order to create a state based upon Islamic laws that undermined all liberal reforms sponsored by seculars who trusted in his party.
Liberals who back Muslim rights must understand that under Islamic Law, the same Muslim activist that seem to project justice and liberties, would condemn homosexuals, transgender, atheist and lesbians to death. The hypocrisy couldn’t be any more apparent.
Terrorism and the Bible excuse
Browsing through the internet I came across videos of Muslim clerics condemning ISIL by pointing that the bible sponsors the same behavior as the Quran, trying to reciprocate blame on Europeans for the intervention of western troops in Arab lands.
Who is the terrorist?
Before I get into the Bible, I want to denote the real significance of the term ‘terrorism’ that for most Muslims has a different connotation than what the typical liberal progressive generally accepts as an act of solidarity for condemning attacks in the western world.
The term ‘terrorism’ for many religious Muslims means western occupation on Arab lands and the killing of Muslims thereof. Generally, religious Muslims mostly condemn the killing of other innocent Muslims when jihadist extremist launch attacks that target Muslims and non-Muslims; In other words, dead Muslims are the true innocent people during a terrorist attack, but what about non-Muslims?
If Jews, Atheist, Buddhist, Hindus, Christians, agnostics, Zoroastrians, Shinto’s, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics die inside a terrorist attack, will the moderate Muslim openly defend their cause against extremist? Will they unify to protest the innocent death of non-Muslims? Will moderate Muslims go to their neighborhoods and help eradicate extremism?
They also believe the US, the EU alongside Israel are terrorist states oppressing innocent Muslims worldwide; whereas, Hamas, ISIL and Al-Qaeda are the opposing forces battling the anti-Islamic invaders in the name of jihad. Even though, Muslims might not openly express these views in public, they share these beliefs with other Muslims.
The Islamic Brotherhood represents the ‘moderate’ side of Islamism openly sponsoring peace, education, tolerance and unity among Muslims; however, it secretly funds Jihadist cells like Ansar Al-Sharia in Tunisia and Libya with AQ affiliation in Yemen. For the IB, western occupation, democracy and authoritarian governments represent the devil himself. It is important for Islam to overcome the apostate world that fights against Islamic tenets.
The Islamic Brotherhood, the General National Council and Hamas are three political parties that show the Middle East to always revolve in the same ultra-Islamic scheme restricting fully fledged secular amalgamation in Politics. Considering this happens in Arab lands and these political groups represent moderate Muslims; it is only rational to assume an Islamic state would be created in Europe if Muslim moderates were given authority to wield political rights.
The Bible myth
Time and time again Imams and sheiks all over the Muslim world defend jihadist propaganda pointing to past events in the Bible to excuse the behavior of radical extremist in Europe. But the real question is what century are these religious fanatics currently living on?
Ironically, the time of the crusades evanesced hundreds of centuries ago forgotten in the dusty shelves of European libraries and cathedrals that only few old devoted people attend. European baby boomers are almost entirely now atheist, agnostics or believe there is a god but don’t convict or claim any faith. The typical millennial is even more anti-church than his parents.
Very few Europeans are actually Lutheran “Christians” that follow the bible; professed Catholics are also a dying breed and proselyte to different dogmas that include conversion to Islam, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormonism and mostly atheism. No European country fights wars in the name of the Pope of Rome since the 17th century.
The last religious war between faiths in Europe comprised of the Church of England battling the Holly Roman Catholic church in a cultural event that divided Europe and killed millions of people during the transition of power. The war left a significant scar in European history and weakened the Church of Rome in its ultimate quest to wield more political power.
After the French Revolution, the 18th century European Enlightenment challenged the view of catholic Rome and religious practices started to dramatically decline from what was once Europe’s main cultural lifestyle. Romanticism, conservatism, nationalism and liberalism emerged from the ashes of the social revolution with philosophy and arts leading the movement.
The European social revolution after the Industrial Revolution only resumed the downfall of religious creeds with new political movements that portrayed a world free of faith without god like that promoted by anarchism, communism, Marxism, minarchism, capitalism and socialism.
The goal was for social organizations (government) to control and organize the balance of natural resources to help create a world free of oppression and injustice without the presence of religious involvement; it was successful.
For centuries peasants in Europe suffered oppression from monarchs, elitist and land owners co-sponsored by catholic support. These finally dampened all religious tolerance before War World I, which lead to social revolts in Europe including civil-wars that transformed the working class and elites into liberal progressives, partly thanks to the nascent rise of Darwinian theology (modern day evolution).
They were a few exceptions, Spain’s Franco reminiscent of Catholic tradition was one of them; although, after his death, Spain’s democratic transition changed the post-religious structure to be in equilibrium with the rest of 20th century constitutional Europe.
This liberal transformation is presently rising in the US that unlike the 50’s no longer tolerates religion in government affairs, education, military and social integration; thus why, thanks to technocrats evolutionary theory has successfully thrived and taken control of political affairs in America and Europe excluding religious tolerance in many universities nationwide. Most of the US media is anti-conservative and does not advocate in favor of religion; Fox news the errant exception.
Veneration of saints continues to be part of Mediterranean festivities, but those fallowing these rituals represent the older generations born in 1940’s, which are mostly casual traditionalist unlike the new generation of Europeans who won’t heed to any religious practices.
Even the most devout catholic priests have never publically expressed consternation for Rome’s expansion or decline to a growing number of conversions; unlike the Imams in London and Paris who want to impose Sharia-law on all of Western Europe openly conveying the propagation of Islamic tenants to non-Muslims worldwide.
Bible belt states mostly from the South have survived the demise of Christianity in the US. That number will continue to steadily decline as liberal dogmas continue to infiltrate religious groups in both house and senate.
The ebbing of Christianity and Catholicism in most European governments occurred in the 18th century. Wars are no longer conducted on the premise of religion, but only based on the violation of international law among national interests, which explains the creation of The UN and NATO. If Europe was Catholic or Protestant it would bow to the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church, and not to outside organizations to make international resolutions.
Christian conversions are currently the highest in Asia including China, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, India, Laos and Taiwan. Muslim radicals should be declaring war on Asian countries if Christianity is really the core problem of Arab interventionism.
So all Muslim clerics who deliberately mention bible verses to excuse jihadist terrorism trying to verse Europeans in Christianity are either naively stupid or have absolutely no idea what they are talking about — still living in the memories of the crusades, assuming Europeans care about what the bible teaches — If anything, now days people believe religion is ‘primitive thinking’ and an imaginary god is part of the larger quandary destroying civilization. God is more or less an imaginary figure in the modern western world.
Do Muslim clerics read history?
Another problem in the Islamic world is the staggering historical misconception of Muslim clerics to not differentiate between Catholics and Christians. Crusaders where Catholics; Catholics are not Christian; Christians separated from Rome approximately in the second ecumenical council of Nicaea in 787 AC, because of iconoclasm which is the veneration of idols.
Iconoclasm is prohibited in Christianity because it’s regarded as idol worshiping. The Coptic Church, the Ethiopian, the Assyrian, the Arab and other Middle Eastern Churches separated in accordance to this doctrine and Christians dwelled independently in North Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Eastern Europe where the Eastern Orthodox Church remained the epicenter of Christianity. The west was Catholic, whereas the east was Christian.
Initially Popes did not condone iconoclasm, especially during the first ecumenical councils. But after the 7th century the pope was viewed as the successor of Christ among the Catholic world to wield the same power as god himself, even as to overwrite scripture which was blasphemous to Christian doctrine. The Catholic movement became independent from Christianity. Some emperors in Constantinople were also following this practice which stirred rage among Christians in Byzantium.
The crusades were initiated in 1095 AC, sanctioned by the Catholic Church, after the Turks threatened to attack Constantinople the center of Orthodox Christianity which had already separated from Rome. Byzantine emperor Alexios I, urged pope Urban II to aid him with military assistance. Ironically it was the Seljuk Empire a Muslim based Sultanate that started the war against Byzantium, something modern day Muslims don’t talk about.
According to history, Muslims started the war against the Eastern Orthodox Church; the Roman Catholic Church assisted with help, the goal of the Pope was to reunite the east with the west again. Prior to Islam the Sassanid Empire in 602 AC under emperor Chosroes II invaded the Eastern Orthodox Empire capturing Egypt, Palestine and Syria threatening Constantinople itself.
So not only Muslims, but prior to their existence, the Arabs were already trying to aggressively conquer Constantinople. Emperor Heraclius turned back the tide and crushed the Sassanid’s, but at that point it was too late. Islam emerged in Arabia, and absorbed the Sassanid’s and much of the eastern Roman Empire.
Rome had become independent and Catholicism, not Christianity was now enforced in Europe. A weak Eastern Orthodox Church succumbed to the powerful Ottoman Empire. The Eastern Orthodox Church was the last foothold and epicenter of Christianity.
The Muslims had already conquered the Christian centers of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria by the sword and with Constantinople out of the picture, Christianity no longer had a central city. It was an easy defeat, but Rome wasn’t easy; the Crusades started when the Roman Catholic Church and Islam clashed in the name of their gods waging fierce campaigns.
The Catholic Church after centuries of hegemony indisputably dominated Western Europe administrating orders from the pope himself to all nations in Europe with monarchical consent. The new ‘crusades’ targeted not only Muslims, but also Jews and Christian evangelic movements in southern France. Crusaders killed thousands of Christians who like the Eastern Orthodox Church did not agree with Catholicism; the only difference was that during Byzantium, the Roman Catholic Church did not dominate all Europe because Barbarians (Visigoths and Vandals) controlled most of it.
Eventually Christianity reemerged in the 16th century when Martin Luther, condemned the Catholic Church which had banned the bible for centuries during the Dark Ages of Europe sanctioning literacy and writing. The protestant reformation gave Christianity a new voice against the despotic Catholic Church, and not without struggle Europe was finally reformed and the new Church of England finally won the battle against Roman Catholicism but the death toll was very high.
Something Muslims don’t understand is that Erasmus, Wycliffe, Luther, Tyndale, Calvin and many others who set the counter-reformation, condemned the Crusades because it also targeted Christians who didn’t vow to the Church of Rome. Muslims are also responsible for the forced conversions and atrocities committed against Christians in the Middle East.
Muslims in general are not well learned in western history. For a Muslim to say Catholics and Christians are the same religion would be equal to state that Muslims and Jews are the same religion with different names. If this were to be true, then surely Muslims shouldn’t get mad when someone calls them a Jew considering some of the similarities they share with Old Testament laws which are not practiced in Islam.
On the same token, just because Muslims believe in Jesus and the prophets it does not make them Christian. So just because the Roman Catholic Church believes in Jesus, and even the trinity it doesn’t make them Christian either, considering they follow their own rituals, cannons and tradition of saints. Sadly many Radical Muslims ignore history to fit their hate of Christianity.
Muslim rioters caused the Syrian crisis
The Syrian refugee crisis has spilled over into Europe, and no one wants to accommodate waves of Muslim immigrants who can’t proof background checks because there is no intelligence to recollect information from Syria. If you picked up a homeless man from the street, you might consider checking his criminal record before inviting him to stay; never mind 2 million Muslim immigrants.
EU and the US are not responsible for the problems of Syria. The Arab Spring was equally sponsored by Muslim and non-Muslim countries that advocated for democracy. Historically, dictatorships have proven to stabilize Arab sectarian violence with more efficacy than democracy.
Yet Muslims rebelled against Assad’s regime seeking western support; whereas, the west did not force Syrians to start revolts but indeed approved a social revolution. Syrians willingly felt entangled with Libya, Yemen, Egypt and Tunisia’s revolution and tried to retake control of the country under the umbrella of a unified civil war.
It was a risk initiated by the people of Syria, but sponsored by Muslim and non-Muslim actors. The experiment utterly came as disastrous and resulted in sectarian violence, not only giving Ben-Assad’s regime support from Russia, China, Egypt and Iran, but ultimately helped jihadist groups expand territory in Syria proving once again that liberal democracy is nothing but wishful thinking in the Middle East.
The EU and the US don’t have any obligation or entitlement to accept Syrian refugees, especially after the Paris and Mali bombing attacks set by ISIL and Al-Qaeda. Assad has said in multiple occasions that he is “willingly happy to grant concessions to unite the nation again and end the nonsensical civil-war in Syria.”
The FSA and SAA have lost control of the country and splinter territory to Al-Nusra and ISIL that have another more sinister agenda that would further hamper Syria’s future into an Islamic sinkhole. At least half of the Syrian refugees that helped start the civil war are responsible for unifying the country and should resolve what they initiated instead of simply fleeing into neighboring nations.
Assad offered coalescence in Syria, and the FSA are now deserting to Al-Nusra and ISIL? What a contradiction — if indeed these are peaceful Muslims defending Arab nationalism without religious dogmas in mind.
Jihadist will obtain nuclear bombs
Eventually Al-Qaeda, or ISIL will obtain a dirty nuclear devise and detonate it somewhere in the US or Europe. It’s not just about obtaining uranium or plutonium, it is about finding the right scientist who will accept a generous bribe and help guideline the fission of atoms to manufacture a bomb.
Former KGB, ISI, MSS or RAW intelligence scientist could be easily tracked down by terrorist networks and generously paid to collaborate in the making of a nuclear arsenal. The other possibility would be to hack a government nuclear server and steal instructional information on how to develop a bomb.
Once the resources are found to develop a nuclear bomb, manufacturing would be simple; transportation and access to target cities in the EU and US present even an easier task.
The US-Mexican border offers plenty of hidden tunnels used by Cartels to smuggle trucks that camouflage drugs crossing the fence. There is not enough security in the world or human resources to stop the infiltration of weapons from coming inside the US border.
ISIL and Al-Qaeda could easily buyoff Mexican drug lords from Cartels like El Golfo, lease swaths to train Islamic foreign militants and smuggle weapons free of US surveillance on a country run by a weak and corrupt central government.
In fact, the manufacturing of a nuclear device inside Mexico would be the perfect scenario to conduct a successful plot on American soil without worrying about intercepts from US counter-intelligence operatives.
Unlike what some counter intelligence experts believe, NYC would not be the target of choice and cities on the East Coast constantly remain in high alert making them a difficult objective; However, Las Vegas, Beverly Hills, Phoenix and San Francisco are tantalizing targets for Muslim extremist given the lack of security and vastness of land separating these states.
Las Vegas offers America’s favorite fortune playground and represents a major headstone for capitalism. Beverly Hills is America’s theater of choice attracting great influence worldwide. Phoenix is America’s western conservative model and San Francisco represent America’s pillar for equal rights, where homosexuality is forbidden under Islamic Law. Not a farfetched scenario considering the proximity with the Mexican border.
If a nuclear bomb detonates inside the US or Europe, foreign diplomacy would automatically go out the window replaced by extermination strategies that would control most situation rooms in western countries without any possibility of turning back.
There is no reason why to head into that direction, genocide is always the last resort, but nonetheless the most effective measure to control unwanted pests. This can be prevented only if moderate Muslims in Europe and the Middle East start to fight against extremist who use their religion as an excuse for igniting terror.
One billion Muslims can surely contain a small growing percentage of radical jihadists from misrepresenting their religion, if indeed they are against extremism. But if peaceful Muslims (if they exist) cannot contain their own religious extremism from flourishing, I am afraid no one can control Islamic terrorism and other strategies must be adopted that will eventually guarantee security in western lands –extermination the most effective measure thereof.
Don’t provoke an old ghost
It is not wise for Islamic militants to undermine Europe’s military might. As history ineffably shows, the worst conflicts in human history have evolved in Europe along with the Middle East. Luckily after War World II, Europe has not suffered any significant turmoil outside of Serbia trying to seize Bosnia and Kosovo which ended with UN intervention.
Spain, Rome, France, Portugal, Holland, England and Germany became world powers at one point in history and flashed the grandeur of great empires nullifying the past glory of any Middle Eastern pre or post-Islamic empire. The Muslim extremist should churn not the military capability and the history of these countries to react in times of conflict.
Despite the present lax nature of most European countries, the lack of military enrolment and the decline of religious values since the 18th century, Europe still remains a powerful force to reckon with.
A revengeful joint attack from Europeans and the US would be no match for Muslim countries to absorb; bacteriological, chemical and nuclear radiation would finally find a porpoise, alongside extermination squads desecrating life.
Moderate Muslims worldwide, in the western world and especially in the Middle East must be more proactive to help exterminate, dissolve and not fund terrorist organizations. The other side of the spectrum ends with extermination from the west. The Mongols in 1258 raided Bagdad in an act of revenge after Muslims tortured Tartars, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kazaks and Mongols in central Asia that ended with extermination and gave peace to the region for 200 years; Europe won’t hesitate either under the right circumstances.
Comments Off on Points to pounder: Islam in the western world
Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.
Michael Smith Ph.D.
He is a professor of political science at Emporia State Univeristy. Teaches local politics, campaigns and elections, political philosophy, legislative politics, and nonprofit management.
1) Today’s generation seems a lot less conservative than other past generations. It looks like liberal dogmas over the years have replaced several conservative values sacred to the pillar of true republicanism. Has the Republican Party significantly weakened over these past 8 years? Are republicans today closer to the left than they are to the right?
The two parties are more polarized. Conservative Democrats—who mostly came from the South—have been replaced by Republicans. Liberal Republicans—who mostly came from the Northeast—have been replaced by Democrats. It appears that the Millennials are generally pretty liberal, particularly on social issues. Most notably, there has been an absolute sea change in support for LGBT rights since the 1990s. Young people, in particular, are strongly in support. The Republican Party is becoming the party of older, white people. Most younger people self-identify as nonpartisan but those who vote are trending heavily Democratic. Of course, voter turnout among the young remains low.
2) Homosexuals, minorities and immigrants loath the Republican Party viewing it as religiously intolerant comprised of elites that sponsor foreign wars to spread capitalism globally. Many inside these groups would vote for Republicans if they were more accepting in terms of civil rights and immigration. Has the Republican Party done a good job trying to become more accepting to homosexuals, minorities and immigrants? If not, would it be a good idea that the Republican candidates win the hearts and minds of these groups without giving away conservative values? Is that even remotely possible?
The GOP is a mess right now. Party insiders know that the Donald Trump candidacy is a disaster for the party, for many reasons, not the least of which is that he is alienating Latino and younger voters. Ben Carson may not be much better. However, the party base wants an outsider candidate and has no interest in the kind of party-building that the insiders seek. The base also wants strong anti-illegal-immigration legislation. Some GOP insiders want Marco Rubio to be the nominee and he may emerge as the “mainstream” alternative to Carson and Trump, but it isn’t clear if symbolism alone (Rubio is Cuban-American) would overcome the party’s negative image.
3) Traditionally Latinos are conservative. Why do they swing to Democrats?
The GOP base is strongly anti-illegal immigration and culturally, that can spill over easily into being anti-all-immigration and anti-Latino, despite party leaders’ continuing insistence that they are only against illegal, as opposed to legal immigration. I don’t think the illegal/legal distinction plays well among Latino voters. First of all, among the base, it can often play out as discrimination, not adherence to the law. Second, many Latino families are mixed: they include U.S. citizens, legal immigrants, and undocumented immigrants all in the same family, so the legal/illegal distinction just doesn’t wash with them. Also for those who are working-class, the Democrats still remain the party of choice—there is still a strong socioeconomic dimension to voting, despite the heavy emphasis on social issues these days.
4) Considering Donald Trump’s past… Is Donald Trump a true Republican or an opportunist?
I’d say opportunist. Trump’s agenda appears to be himself. His political views are completely incoherent. He advocates national health insurance—very expensive—but also wants voters to return their tax forms with the words “I win” handwritten across them. Where would he get the revenue for his national health insurance? He also wants to deport American citizens—those whose parents are immigrants but the children were born here. This is wildly unconstitutional. There’s just no coherent political agenda there to label.
5) Donald Trump thus far has had a large impact in the GOP primaries beating almost all of his fellow competitors. But despite his sudden rise, skeptics, analyst and politicians hold deep concerns worried about his candidacy. Looking at his foreign and national policy, it is not clear how exactly he plans to implement most of his reforms. He said that “Mexico will pay for the wall he plans to construct in the border”. He also said “Putin would get along with him to solve the Syrian crisis.” Is Donald Trump the man for the job in DC? Would he really outsmart Mexico, China, and Putin?
Because of the incoherence of Trump’s agenda, it’s hard to predict how he’d perform as President. Mathematically, it seems impossible for him to win the presidency because he would get so few Latino voters—and so many would turn out to vote against him. If he did somehow become President, my best guess as that we should look at who he’d be likely to appoint to key policymaking and advising positions, such as his cabinet, because he would likely rubber-stamp a lot of their decisions since he seems to have little knowledge of or interest in policymaking himself.
6) Dr. Ben Carson has also done fairly well in the GOP, now leading key states like Iowa and Arkansas. Could he beat Donald Trump? Could he take on Hillary and win?
Carson’s policy views aren’t much more in-depth than those of Trump, though they are a bit more coherent. African-American voters have shown little interest in supporting a candidate unless that candidate shares their views, not just their race. In fact, if Carson begins lecturing African-Americans about conservative values there could even be a backlash, with more African-American voters turning out to oppose him.
Overall, the electoral map these days seems to favor Democrats for President and Republicans for Congress, so I’d give the Democratic nominee the edge. However, it’s too soon to make specific predictions about a Carson-Clinton race. Carson hasn’t “branded” anti-illegal immigration stands as part of his campaign, so he doesn’t have the automatic negatives that Trump does. On the other hand, Carson is politically untested so a Hillary Clinton campaign, in particular, could really challenge Carson by putting him up against a political pro.
7) If Ben Carson, Sen. Marco Rubio or Sen. Ted Cruz beat Donald Trump, will Trump focus on continuing his race but on independent grounds? What would be the consequences for the Republican Party if so?
There is no way for the Republicans to win if Trump runs an independent candidacy and gets anything more than a few percent of the votes. Mathematically, it just won’t work. If Trump does make good on his threat, look for GOP insiders to make overtures to Trump privately and offer him something in exchange for his withdrawing from the race.
8) Before the primaries everyone thought Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were going to be the present frontrunners of the GOP. What has happened to the political class in the GOP and DC? Why the sudden demise? Are people tire of politicians?
I think it’s the Tea Party movement. It a movement against pluralism itself, not just a push for more conservative values. The GOP base is ready to shut down the government instead of compromise. Our system of government requires compromise to function. GOP insiders know this but they don’t know how to handle their own base. It cost Speaker Boehner his job.
9) They are concerns with new strands of liberalism creeping inside the Democratic Party coming from nonreligious groups. Many young radical reformers view Capitol Hill as corrupted, and not only have started to adopt principles of anarchy, but also of communism, Marxism and minarchism into the system to end capitalism. Christianity is under fire more than ever before under the scientific based state influenced by these groups. Are many new liberals not really democrats, but instead Neo-Liberal that adopt far- more radical leftist dogmas leeching moderate liberal progressives to establish a scientific state free of religion, military, capitalism and conservatism?
That’s quote a loaded question! I don’t agree with the premise. I assume you’re referring to the Bernie Sanders candidacy. Sanders does self-identify as a socialist, but he also clarifies that socialism as he defines it is, essentially, to the left side of the modern-day Democratic Party. What he advocates wouldn’t even be considered particularly controversial in Europe or Canada—not everyone would vote for him but he would fit into the mainstream there.
As far as faith issues, young people in general are turning away from churchgoing. I think that churches have a similar “branding” problem to the Republican Party—older and intolerant. Liberal and mainline churches are trying to fill the breech but it remains a struggle. The whole idea of going to church—and also being active in secular, community-based organizations like the Optimists club, League of Women Voters, etc., just seems foreign to this generation. Some charities have been more effective at getting the young involved, partly by extensive use of social media.
10) A lot of people, especially in social media believe that the high rise of ignorance and crime in the African-American community is the failed social experiment of liberals. They believe liberal activist support groups like “Black Lives Matter” that instigate violence victimizing race over crime, but ignore incidents of African Americans murdering other African-Americans, Caucasians and police enforcement. Is this view farfetched? Are the struggles of the African American community the byproduct of the social experiments from the left?
Not quite sure how to handle this question—Black Lives Matter is a grassroots leadership movement that has up-ended the traditional African-American establishment with their organizing skills, which rely heavily on social media, particularly Twitter. As far as the media publicizing crime, all one needs to do is watch the local television news in any city in America to see that instances of violent crime are frequently and heavily publicized, often featuring photos of alleged assailants. All of the cases publicized by BLM involve the police killing unarmed assailants.
11) Does the liberal establishment control most of the Media compared to Conservatives? Would you name a few television networks they control?
I don’t think there is any such thing as “the liberal establishment.” I do think that much of the “mainstream” news media has a certain pro-establishment bias—for example, they don’t give equal time to opponents of trade deals like the bipartisan Trans Pacific Partnership: they publicize protests but not the actual views of the protestors. The news media is, with just a few exceptions, for-profit in this country and their coverage is ultimately driven by what will sell airtime, website hits, newspapers, and so forth. This often means favoring sensationalism over substance.
12) The Benghazi scandal temporarily hit Hillary’s campaign with ardor from the right, ravaged by republican interest groups trying to demonize her image to discourage her nomination, but despite all the negativity Hillary seems to have survived the storm. Should she be blamed for Benghazi? Why hasn’t the scandal hurt her campaign?
I honestly don’t know what the “scandal” regarding Benghazi is supposed to be. The GOP’s attacks are so multifaceted that it isn’t clear to me an observer what it is, exactly, that Hillary supposedly did wrong. It seems to have something to do with her not sending more troops to Libya prior to the tragic deaths of the Ambassador and others in his convoy, but this would appear to me to be a policy decision, not a scandal. I suspect that many voters are just as confused as I am.
At any rate, polling is showing that the Benghazi hearings actually boosted Clinton’s popularity and hurt the Republicans.
13) On the other hand, Bernie Sanders has revolutionized the DOP. He promised to bring down the elites, and transform the US with socialism. Does Bernie appeal to people more than Hillary? Is Bernie better equipped to run the nation than Hillary? Would socialism work?
As I mentioned above, Sanders’ “socialism” is really just the left side of the Democratic Party. He has announced no plans to nationalize industries, except for health insurance. One of his biggest issues is breaking up large banks, another is a $15/hour minimum wage.
The big question with a Sanders presidency is how he would get anything passed. The Republicans look set to retain the House and probably both houses of Congress through 2020.
14) A lot of people claim that the nation is greatly divided thanks to liberals. It seems like the notion of Nationalism presented during the Reagan Administration hardly remains the same today. With decline in nationalism, many youths no longer believe in patriotism and demonize the military. Could it be said that many of the youths have lost the sense of national pride? If so, Is that good for the country?
I don’t agree with the premise of the question.
We are experiencing both the advantages and the disadvantages of an all-volunteer military. The strongest opponents of returning to a draft are the military leaders themselves, who never want a return of the low morale of the Vietnam era.
The USA has soldiers fighting overseas but many families do not have any close relatives in the military. Many younger Americans do not so much disrespect the military as simply remain unaware of it—the wars in the Middle East are out of sight, out of mind for many Americans these days.
15) Would the rise of a third political party eventually save nation from greater schisms or should we always rely on bipartisanship?
Third parties are enormously difficult to field in a winner-take-all electoral system. They tend to fare much better under proportional representation. Here in the USA, 3rd parties sometimes play the role of spoilers—most recently, the Ralph Nader Green Party candidacy appears to have cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000.
16) Will Donald Trump take the GOP? Which out of the Republicans has a real chance against Hillary and why?
I don’t know what kind of advisors and campaign staff Trump has. I don’t know if he’s equipped to take over the GOP with “his people.” Right now he’s mostly giving them fits.
Among the more mainstream GOP candidates, I would guess Rubio would be their most competitive.
17) Who wins the 2016 elections? Are any of the candidates good for the US?
As per the above, right now the U.S. map favors Democrats in Presidential elections and Republicans in Congressional ones. As to which candidates are best, that’s largely a matter of one’s political ideology and party preference, but I would opine that I can’t fathom how a Trump or Carson Presidency could be good for the country.
Comments Off on Professor answers questions regarding The US political race
Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.
Robert R. Reilly
He is a writer and senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. He has published on topics of US foreign policy and “war of ideas”.
1) When we look at history, one of the first signs concerning the collapse of any civilization is the weakening of its military core. Has the United States started to show this decline?
The weakening of the military is a symptom, not a cause of collapse. Civilizations decline when the core of their inner beliefs is eroded. Moral collapse precedes civilizational collapse. There is little question that the United States is suffering a moral decline.
2) Under the Obama administration, military enrollment has declined to dangerous low levels similar to what was observed during the Clinton Administration. It seems that the American youth, instead of admiring the military core, now demonize it. Has the faith once unifying nation and military come to an abrupt end thanks to American liberalism?
I think that is too extreme. I see no such demonization of the military by American youth. In fact, one of my sons is joining the Marines. The low levels of enrollment are the result of a deliberate policy of the Obama administration which thinks that a large part of the world’s woes are attributable to, and therefore can be solved by, US withdrawal. If you are withdrawing from the world, you shrink your military. Unfortunately, the way in which Obama has withdrawn US forces has exacerbated the very problems that he thought the withdrawal would solve. Also, under Pres. Obama, there has been a clear loss of a sense of mission. People are moved to join the military out of a sense of mission. If that is not there, they are less inclined to join. The problem is not with the military or the youth; it is with the political leadership.
3) Long ago a veteran told me that wars are won with man to man combat. Considering the imminent befall of militaristic values in the American youth, if a war erupted, would they be more motivated to fight than the youths in Russia and China that show great levels of nationalism? Would that motivation play a key element for America’s continuance as the leading superpower? Do you see the necessary motivation in today’s youth to fight for the country?
I think the answer to your question depends on how a war begins. If the United States is attacked, I have no doubt that American youth will fight. You would see how quickly militaristic their values became. However, misconceived overseas military excursions do not invite a comparable willingness to fight.
It remains to be seen what Russia can sustain in terms of military effort. The United States has its problems, but Russia is more clearly a declining power than is America.
Both Russia and China have lost the core of their communist ideologies, so they are seeking alternatives that can sustain their authoritarian regimes. Clearly, nationalism is one of those alternatives, and it is no surprise to see them both playing it up. I think Machiavelli would admire the political utility of Putin’s military adventures.
4) China and Russia have resurfaced from their ebbed communist past into a new future jointly embarked to become binary superpowers. Do China and Russia currently have any respect for the United States?
Russia has little chance of restoring itself as a superpower. Its demographics and the shape of its economy militate against this. However, Putin has played his hand brilliantly. It costs little to move into areas that the United States has vacated. These vacuums are easy targets of opportunity. Also, Putin’s willingness to use military force, both covertly and overtly, make Russia seem stronger than it is. A weak military power that is used is stronger than a strong military power that is not used – for example, Russia versus Europe. By any measure, it should be Europe telling Russia what to do, not the other way around. However, Europe’s populations seem to have lost any cause for which they might be willing to fight. Thus, their military power is relatively meaningless.
I think that both Russia and China see the United States as a declining power. Declining powers do not elicit respect. However, they know that Obama is likely to be replaced by a president with a stronger vision of the American role in the world and might not wish to push too hard against the United States in case the sleeping giant shakes off its lethargy and decides to reverse its decline.
5) China and Russia under the Obama administration seem to have spontaneously shown signs of global expansionism. How has the US and NATO responded to such motives? Have NATO and the US done a good job in dealing with both countries?
I think it was a mistake for Europe to attempt to entice Ukraine out of the Russian orbit. No Russian leader – whether a Communist Party secretary-general, a czar, or an authoritarian leader like Putin – could afford such a loss of influence in an area so vital to its national security. For instance, if Ukraine became a member of NATO, the distance from NATO’s borders to Moscow would be half of what they are today. Why would we wish to put a Russian leader in this situation when Ukraine is not a vital strategic interest of the West?
China’s push into the South China Sea with its construction of islands and claims of sovereignty seems to be a decisive provocation and will invite a test of strength with the United States and its allies. This is a very dangerous situation. If Obama actually had the naval and other military strength to make his pivot to the Pacific credible, I don’t think China would have embarked on such a provocative endeavor.
6) China has opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement summoned to end dependency from Chinese exports; will this agreement boil further tension between China and the US?
China is such an economic powerhouse in the area that I don’t see it getting overly exercised by this agreement.
7) China’s presence on the South East Sea to build artificial islands has raised red flags in Vietnam and the Philippines, could it spill into a larger conflict if the situation is not solved soon?
See number five above. China has a lot to lose in such a conflict, so it will be interesting to see how much farther it’s willing to push. Also, its aggressive behavior is solidifying an alliance against it by alarming its neighbors.
8 ) Russia has a similar problem. Poland, Finland, Denmark and Norway are very concerned with Russian expansionism and have started to increase their military capabilities. Do you see this spilling into a larger conflict?
I seriously doubt this. The more the nations you mentioned strengthen their defensive capabilities, the less likely it is to happen.
9) Are China and Russia jointly plotting schemes to substitute US global hegemony?
They are clearly aiming to be the regional hegemons in their areas. How far their ambitions reach will depend, in part, on the length of the US retreat from those areas. In general, both China and Russia have an interest in complicating the world situation for the United States.
10) Russian jet fighters have been caught illegally flying in different airspace around the world hasting concerns of Putin’s real intentions. From 2014-15 the amount of airspace violated by Russia has exponentially grown. What is Putin trying to prove to the world? And do Russians support his actions in Ukraine and Syria?
Putin is trying to demonstrate that if Russia’s strategic interests are challenged, Russia is in a position to challenge the strategic interests of others. Therefore, he demonstrates that he can fly strategic bombers off the Gulf of Mexico and deploy troops to Syria. He also likes the element of surprise, which keeps everyone off-balance and gives him a stronger hand. Putin’s basic message is: if you play in my backyard, I’ll play in your backyard. I am not trying to excuse Putin’s behavior, but to understand it.
11) There is sufficient evidence that China is already in the process of sending troops into Syria to protect oil fields in Iraq from ISIS expansionism. They have already send ships, tanks and jet fighters. Beijing is backed with Assad’s blessings, and Russian approval. What reaction would we expect from the US if China enters the Syrian picture?
I have seen no evidence of any of this.
12) Judging by their present actions, it doesnâ€™t seem as if China and Russia care about violating diplomatic agreements. Does China and Russia really believe in diplomatic means? Or do they use diplomacy to flake their real expansionist scheme?
Frederick the Great said that, “diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments.” Russia and China understand this and have developed sufficient arms to advance their diplomatic aims. The West seems to think that all diplomacy requires is playing music. Russia and China want changes in the international order. They know they cannot achieve this by diplomacy alone or by observing prior diplomatic agreements. Therefore, when the opportunity presents itself, they will set aside diplomatic agreements to form an international order more to their liking.
13) Has a new cold war started? United States gets in future war with China and Russia. Who wins? Would that war decide the faith of the new superpower? What happens if the US lost that war?
It does not appear that there is a global ideological struggle comparable to the Cold War. However, there are aggrieved powers, like China, Russia, and the new so-called caliphate of the Islamic State, that are anti-status quo powers. The United States and the NATO countries are status quo powers. Therefore, there is bound to be major friction here, and it could lead to wars.
Losing wars is a very bad idea. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Comments Off on Has liberal democracy damaged the US Military?
Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.
He is professor emeritus of history at James Madison University
1) When we look at history, one of the first signs concerning the collapse of any civilization is the weakening of its military core. Has the United States started to show this decline?
Congdon: The U.S. military is in decline for a number of reasons–none of them having to do with sophistication of weaponry. The military is being used for social “experiments”–that is, it now enlists women and homosexuals, which will only destroy morale. It is over-extended, fighting too many wars in too many places without a clear national interest at stake.
2) Under the Obama administration, military enrollment has declined to dangerous low levels similar to what was observed during the Clinton Administration. It seems that the American youth, instead of admiring the military core, now demonize it. Has the faith once unifying nation and military come to an abrupt end thanks to American liberalism?
Congdon: The Obama administration is filled with people hostile to the military and young people in the U.S. are not inclined to join up, in some cases with good reason. It was a mistake, long ago now, to end the draft.
3) Long ago a veteran told me that what wars are won with ‘man to man combat.’ Considering the imminent befall of militaristic values in the American youth, if a war erupted, would they be more motivated to fight than the youths in Russia and China that show great levels of nationalism? Would that motivation play a key element for America’s continuance as the leading superpower? Do you see the necessary motivation in today’s youth to fight for the country?
Congdon: Young people who attend university are fed a steady diet of anti-military propaganda, not all of it deserved.
Congdon: Respect must be earned–the U.S., acting in the international arena, has not earned it.
5) China and Russia under the Obama administration seem to have spontaneously shown signs of global expansionism. How has the US and NATO responded to such motives? Have NATO and the US done a good job in dealing with both countries?
Congdon: It is NATO that has expanded in the direction of Russia, despite post-Cold War promises that the organization, which should have been disbanded after the fall of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe, would NOT expand. Both Russia and China have spheres of influence, as does the U.S.
6) China has opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement summoned to end dependency from Chinese exports; will this agreement boil further tension between China and the US?
Congdon: Most of the China-U.S. tension is the result of the U.S.’s peculiar idea that it alone may act in the world. China wishes to dominate ITS area of the world, not the entire world.
7) China’s presence on the South East Sea to build artificial islands has raised red flags in Vietnam and the Philippines, could it spill into a larger conflict if the situation is not solved soon?
Congdon: Whatever conflict occurs in South East Asia would have nothing whatever to do with U.S.’s legitimate national interest.
8) Russia has a similar problem. Poland, Finland, Denmark and Norway are very concerned with Russian expansionism and have started to increase their military capabilities. Do you see this spilling into a larger conflict?
Congdom: The countries mentioned have nothing to fear from Russia–Russia is not an expansionist power; it does have national interests in areas close to home, as does any other power.
9) Are China and Russia jointly plotting schemes to substitute US global hegemony?
Congdom: The answer is no. Why should the U.S. exercise “global hegemony?”
10) Russian jet fighters have been caught illegally flying in different airspace around the world hasting concerns of Putin’s real intentions. From 2014-15 the amount of airspace violated by Russia has exponentially grown. What is Putin trying to prove to the world? And do Russians support his actions in Ukraine and Syria?
Congdom: The Russians do support President Putin’s actions in eastern Ukraine and Syria. Putin is not trying to “prove” anything, other than that Russia will protect ITS national interests. The anti-Putin hysteria in the West has much to do with Putin’s internal policies, including laws against recruiting young people into homosexuality and in defense of Christian civilization.
11) There is sufficient evidence that China is already in the process of sending troops into Syria to protect oil fields in Iraq from ISIS expansionism. They have already sent ships, tanks and jet fighters. Beijing is backed with Assad’s blessings, and Russian approval. What reaction would we expect from the US if China enters the Syrian picture?
Congdon: It should be gratitude for aid in destroying the monstrous ISIS.
12) Judging by their present actions, it doesn’t seem as if China and Russia care about violating diplomatic agreements. Does China and Russia really believe in diplomatic means? Or do they use diplomacy to flake their real expansionist scheme?
13) Has a new cold war started? United States gets in future war with China and Russia. Who wins? Would that war decide the faith of the new superpower? What happens if the US lost that war?
Congdon: It would be absolute lunacy to start a war against China or Russia. To what end? The U.S. cannot win a war in Afghanistan, but against China or Russia?
Comments Off on Is liberal democracy damaging the US Military?
By Jaime Ortega.
In my past arguments, I stated that Neo-Liberalism demonizes nationalist values pushing in favor of radical social democratic reforms to weaken the military muscle that sustains the pillars of American hegemony. Neo-liberalism consist of political organisms like anarchism, minarchism, Marxism, communism, hipsterism and syndicalism that influence the political sphere financed by progressive leftist interest groups that push for larger social scientist scrutiny to prevent the menace of religion.
We see the symptoms of Neo-liberalism with the destruction of family values, the rise of ignorance, political correctness, religious intolerance, scientific scrutiny, the social collapse of African-American communities; work lax, faded working class and decrease on employment in low income jobs; decline of American graduates in social sciences; social disunity, low military enrolment, increased political dogmas, radicalization of feminism, materialism, lack of creativity and suppressed alternative scientific theorems.
Individualism is inculcated with Darwin’s subsistence model of ‘survival of the fittest’ besides many other socio-cultural pernicious ideals that peril American unity. The goal is to establish a society based on extreme forms of civil liberty, scientific materialism and individualism above all other unifying ideologies.
At this present point, the phase of US demoralization and ideological divisiveness has corrupted the interpretation of the American constitution with congressional approval. The ultimate goal of Neo-liberalism is the complete evanescence of religious theology from public education, viewed as ultra repressive and undemocratic.
This is the ultimate goal of Neo-liberalist, to difficult political power to religious institutions via manipulating mainstream media to consolidate humanism above all other theology.
So what is the goal of nationalism?
Nationalism in its simplest form helps unify national interest as one collective organism. It doesn’t allow social lines to be drawn between individuals, party and state. It restructures individualism to linger not on personal freedom only, but on collective interest to protect those entity’s rights by means of effective military, hard work, and effective national and international policy.
Party politics divide the country into two ideological spheres; Democrats and Republicans into liberal and conservative values. Bipartisanship doesn’t allow for centrist parties to involve on state affairs creating a polarized outcome in government.
Certain national affairs should be handled with vigor and others with leniency. Extreme rigor to be applied for criminals and acceptance with equal right issues; nationalism is not a political agent, but a unification entity that solidifies national interest above attempts that divide society as a whole.
If one doesn’t believe in the country he lives on, he no longer partakes in the unity of the country and has admittedly lost faith in the culture he participates. Millions of Neo-Liberals label the US an elitist regime without fear for their provocative nihilist words or respect to those that paid the ultimate sacrifice trying to protect national interest from outside threats; all viewed part of the same demagogy. Ironically Neo-liberals views democrats as part of the problem, even though paradoxically, they support their agenda.
The notion that true conservatives sponsor capitalism is flawed. If one analyzes capitalism and the core principle it sponsors; capitalism unequivocally links to Liberal dogmas because it exalts individual freedom above government intervention — exactly what the Liberal progressive movement lauded after the French revolution. The conclusion is that true democrats are strict capitalist considering the values they, themselves, claim to ideologically support.
One key element of liberal ideology is individualism; however, individual Interest is divisive to unity. When people are allowed to impose new ideological reforms these work in favor for individual freedoms, but not necessarily for the nation’s best interest. Of course this is not true in every case, but it is true when nationalism falls prey to social dichotomy.
One example of this phenomena are prejudiced Caucasian and African ethnic oriented interest groups that rally their cause as separate to the nation’s wellbeing by creating disunity among citizens to provoke national racial dissension amid disunity. Radical activism only steepens the problem with massive protests, causing greater disunity among non-ideological citizens to take a stance on the issue.
On the other hand
With strong nationalism people focus not on racial issues or individualism, but on patriotism, nation state, military power and unity above all other intrusive agents. Nationalism allows for common amalgamation to arise above all other interest and political groups. Without strong national unity, the US will not ethnically and socially thrive as a nation much longer, destined to lose its status as the leading world power.
Nationalism really works. Historically strong nationalism has bond different religious creeds to stand for a common cause which is to protect national sovereignty against foreign invaders and domestic allotment. If strong nationalism can contain religious schism, it can surely restrain racial interest groups sponsored by Neo-liberalism forged to divide the nation with impractical social reforms.
Racial dissension is just one of the many problems nationalism can solve without the use of a revolution. Homophobia is another case pursued by conservative moral indoctrination animated by their disputed religious theology to be of the private interpretation they bias. Liberal gays obviously want no part with republicans, based on the moral outlook of what conservative principles represent chastising bible Christians as part of the problem. Gays are conservative also, who represents them?
This is where political morality goes astray, and nationalism thrives. They are many straight men, who curse the nation, step on the flag and spit on the American constitution. Meanwhile brave homosexual soldiers, who are patriots at heart, risk their lives for the country to protect those Americans who burn the flag to preserve their constitutional rights at the high price of death.
So is the straight man, which burns the flag greater than the homosexual who is willing to give his life for that individual to protect his anti-American interest? Would conservative Republicans take the straight man over the homosexual soldier in this case because he is ‘straight’? That is hypocrisy, as it is clear the homosexual patriot is a man of honor regardless of his sexual orientation. The other man is a traitor, an instigator and according to strict Nationalism he should relinquish his citizen status and leave the country for creating disunity among people.
Nationalism reveres the soldier, the patriot and the nationalist regardless of his ideological background; whereas, democrats and conservatives bias individuals according to their moral stand-view without understanding that behind the simplicity of each individual lays ethical complexity. Life is not bipolar, it’s not I am a “republican you, you are a democrat”. It’s not scientific based. Life is more complex than the highest forms of physics for science itself cannot replicate a human being inside a lab.
Everyone has discrepancies. If discrepancies didn’t exist, we wouldn’t be human; moreover, it would be impossible to live in any urban environment for coexistence would be based on constant unpalatable behavior. Conservatives jack homosexuals against the wall because of their beliefs, but then it is evident that Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, 7 day Adventist, Catholics, Southern Baptist, Protestants, Calvinist and other groups completely disagree with one another in terms of religious doctrine thus the persecution of Protestants during the Roman Catholic Church.
There is greater hate among sectarian creeds, so why do republicans find consent with religious intolerance to achieve unity within their party? — Stupid nonsense! They should be killing each other according to how they apply that exact moral judgment with homosexuals because greater schism exist in how they view one another, and yet most vote for the same party with their lips shut.
The Republican and Democratic Party self-represent their own moral outlook, but do not represent the nation’s best interest. The founding fathers were constitutional-nationalist that pushed for commonwealth, but never advocated for private political representation, especially on a binary system that both parties developed in government after their deaths. Government no longer runs on common sense, but on common political interest.
Elimination of lobbying, greater civil rights, outstanding military, strong nationalism, iron foreign policy based on military strength; eradication of criminals, enforcing strong work ethic, discipline, higher scrutiny on public and private education; allowing low income families to thrive based on hard work and not welfare; enforce people who abuse welfare for years to work low sector jobs; implement companies to pay higher wages to lower sector jobs are problems that can be resolved under nationalism, not under bipartisanship.
Educational reforms will include adding subjects into the curriculum like Fine Tuning, Forbidden History and Intelligent design in schools alongside Darwinian evolution. All optional for any student to learn at their own will, and not that of the system! That is true democracy, not that flaked democracy sponsored by Neo-liberals apathetic to other than evolutionary theory.
Women will have rights as well under Nationalism. Women opting to practice prostitution will be handled rights to do accordingly. Once again this is true democracy. All unborn citizens have value to the nation. Abortions will be limited. Planned Parenthood will be shut and replaced with organizations willing to take babies and infants into a new home for adoption. Gay couples and transgender woman will be offered to adopt children alongside straight families. Those infants remaining not eligible for adoption, will become part of the military core for 20 years, and get a free education while helping the nation’s defense.
Given the high rise of domestic animal abuse and the cruelty of those practicing such malice will be sentenced to harsh punishment. Fear will roam again, overseeing criminals and perpetrators trying to break the law by outsmarting authorities – Execution.
War veterans that fought for their country will receive 30-35% off when purchasing any item as gratitude for their service. Those opposing to comply with this rule should be labeled as traitors, and their sons will be sent to Armed Forces as a learning lesson for their ineptitude and ingratitude.
The doctor, the entrepreneur, the wealth man, the CEO, and other accomplished people owe their subsistence to the military core that protects their interest at the cost of sacrifice in wars. Without an efficient military there is no such thing as a prosperous country, never mind the leading world power.
Drinking age will be set to +18 again. If a man can join the Armed forces at age +18, any young adult holds the right to drink without irrational restrictions.
Child molesters will be spot executed. Woman beaters will be sentence to work prison indefinitely.
All these different issues and many more will be resolved without Neo-Liberals that advocate for perversion of government affairs. And if Republicans do not consent this view, then they are also part of the problem not the solution, only looking out for their own self-interest and not of the nation.
Neo-Liberalism is a cancer
In history outside of the Church of England, and other Northern European countries that adopted the protestant reformation, most theological forms of government have ended in repression. Case and point, the Roman Catholic Church during the Dark Ages; as well as, present forms of Sharia law governance in the Middle East and South Central Asia.
Those religious threats no longer exist in most western countries, only in the Middle East and South Central Asia. The shift has gone to the extreme left, merit of Neo-liberalist propaganda to hijack government institutions with the goal of spreading an atheist state free of religion. The manipulation of media and education is evidence of this agenda.
Neo-liberalism is a cancer in society; it psychologically divides people by encouraging individual freedom on collective environments, in favor of egoistic personal gain. In the typical Neo-liberalist mindset nationalism represents unity amid military power that threatens world liberty. Liberal cowardice shows in times of armed conflict selfishly opposing to sacrifice their own for the nation’s overall best interest.
Most Neo-liberals would egoistically desert the military to survive leaving behind the less educated to fight wars in times of armed conflict. When the war ends; like viruses, they would flee back to the country they forsook to try to hatch ideological progressive seeds back into the system.
Neo-liberalism is a selfish movement that follows Darwin’s doctrine of ‘survival of the fittest”. It believes in instant gratification; egocentric to all common causes that inflict pain, laws and judgment. It tries to evade personal sacrifice that help’s national stability for personal ethical pleasure using intelligent rhetoric to hide cowardice. Mind over physical power; diplomacy over conflict; talk over action –Something currently observed in Washington D.C. politics.
The sickening aspect of this ideology is that after the valiant heroes courageously sacrifice their lives for the nation’s sake; these neo-liberal incumbents instead of paying homage to the brave troops have the nerve to remain in the country to defame the armed forces, nationalism and patriotism for the sake of global humanism. They claim freedom of speech, but then they pursuit a world of political correctness? Are they dumb?
Neo-liberal reforms sow ignominious bigotry in the political spectrum. They would rather rally to protect dying penguins in the South Pole than allow educational reforms that promote alternative scientific based ideologies that explain human development other than evolution to be taught in schools; full knowing, it’s contrary to their egalitarian prejudiced view of the system clung on unproven scientific assumptions.
They want to promote humanism and equality; yet, they ban and censor alternative ideologies that bias their own moral outlook of the world– hypocrites!
African-American communities: Neo-Liberal testing labs
Neo-liberalism has hampered the African-American community decaying the core principles of work, religion, unity, strength and tolerance for other progressive viewpoints like passiveness, individualism and lethargy. African-American communities’ akin lab rats, have served as experimental grounds for liberal interest groups so as to impose their social dogmas without much lure in return to one day implement those same progressive ideals on the rest of the population.
Violent rap, unemployment, materialism, lack of values, drug tolerance, lethargy, loss of religious faith, high pregnancy levels, family divisions are the results of this social experiment that historically ignorant people sadly suffer — Complete failure.
But even though it is mostly evident in African American communities, it is now palpable in other ethnic communities. With time it will create chaos and division among the nation, so it must stop now. We must prosecute the liberal instigators and expose their radical agenda for the survival of the nation’s future.
Does Nationalism advocate for self-rights?
Radical Liberals stand for self-freedom from government oppression in a world where collectivism naturally bonds people together with common laws. But even though individual rights are essential to our existence, they should not conflict with the priorities of any nation’s subsistence for protecting our home allows progress to filtrate our freedoms.
This issue can be clearly observed with the disparate criminal levels in African American communities. Liberals view criminals as good people that evolved around violence influenced by crime and poverty, so instead of blaming the individual, they blame the political establishment for his actions. With flexed laws, the criminal is institutionalized in prison and then released back into society to join the rest of people.
Unfortunately, the experiment is disastrous because once reestablished into the system, most ex-convicts in prison exposed to greater evils in prison become even more violent; so when released, they indoctrinate further malice to others who glorify crime in a never ending cycle of crime, arrest and institutional custody. In the end, without fear of reprisal, criminals are encouraged by feeble volatile laws to successfully thrive infecting the next generation.
The typical liberal believes Caucasians owe African Americans an apology for a situation that happened 300 years ago; started by West African tribal chief’s who captured villagers in exchange for goods to be sold for slavery to Europeans; thus victimizing crime with apologetic action, in exchange for past African-American slavery.
On the other hand, conservative nationalism dictates that the individual is solely responsible for his actions. If he committed a significant violent crime, he should be immediately executed without possibility of infecting the system. Fear is vital to control crime, not words. If people fear committing criminal acts, crime can no longer thrive because fear precludes wrongdoers without possibility of amnesty. So it’s not a question of morality, it’s a question of effectiveness; here is where true nationalism and Neo-liberalism morally split.
Nationalism is not apologetic. Nations are built with different social experiences. No nation has an unblemished record. The only fixation is to learn from the past to improve the imperfect future. In the case of the African American community, they must flee Neo-liberalism apologetics; fight hard, work hard and isolate those dividing their communities for situations that no longer hold ground. Nationalism will protect and serve the hard working African-American, but it will eradicate the criminals and the ideological instigators without amnesty.
What I stated about African-Americans, Is also true for all people that violently break the law. No amnesty for the criminal, just brute force in return. Execution should be viable for all violent criminals without any tolerance or political correctness.
The same can be said with foreign enemies. Neo-liberalism blames US intervention on the Middle East for the rise of ISIS, not understanding that historically regional turmoil spates the region regardless of the superpower in charge. Bill Clinton once blamed the crusades, the reason Muslims despise the west; victimizing Muslims as innocent little lambs that hold no global ambition; therefore, blaming Europe the core problem for today’s quandary in Muslim lands. In the liberal mindset just as with African-Americans, westerners owe Muslims an apology for something that happened over 700 years ago.
Constantinople was forcefully conquered by Muslim troops and became known as Istanbul. Muslims mass murdered Egyptian Coptic’s, Syrian orthodox Christians and Ethiopian Christians who opposed paying the Muslim Yizra tax during the Umayyad Islamic conquests in Syria and Egypt among other nations. They raped Jewish, Christian and Gnostic woman and enslaved them. Muslim troops invaded Serbia, parts of the Balkans and controlled the largest African women slave trade trafficking recorded in human history for 1,000 years.
What do Muslims owe the west? This is the problem with liberal democracy; it is based on self moral-intuition, not historical facts. Visceral approach based on stupidity, not brains.
I urge others to laugh at Neo-liberals hugging Muslim activist who promote peace, when the whole notion of Islam is to “submit to God” without much room for political correctness. The Quran condemns atheism, the same atheism sponsored by Neo-liberals in schools. Those who abandon Islam for other believes are condemned to death and disowned by their families. With all, under an Islamic Caliphate these Neo-liberals would all be put to death for their belief system. Equal rights for women under Islamic Law: Gay rights under Islamic law? Why hug your enemy to find his approval? They claim to be rational people, but do Neo-liberals act accordingly?
A nationalist run government would allow the US military to perform their duty against the enemy without room for political diplomacy. The Roman Empire would have not lasted 500 years if it hadn’t quenched other emerging rival threats. The Mongols raided Baghdad in 1258 AC, after years of repression from Muslims in Tartar lands; whom gruesomely tortured Mongol captives displaying their bodies for public entertainment. The Mongols tired of Muslim Jihad, exterminated and decimated the population installing fear that lasted over 200 years ultimately to bring peace into the region. The US should learn from history, deploy troops in Syria and exterminate ISIS to convey peace into the region.
Liberals during the Arab Spring advocated the removal of dictators for modest democratic reforms sparked by secular Arab progressives (liberals). Liberal policy backed with US funding showed foolish ineptitude that ended in brutal civil wars, tribal, regional and sectarian division.
The Middle East is much worse now, that it was before the revolutions started. These dictators had an iron fist in the region that posed strong nationalist behavior that controlled all forms of sectarian risings in the name of national unity. Ironically, it was the secular liberal integration in the progressive Arab youth that sparked a civil war ending any possibility for democracy in the Middle East.
Nationalism is not a political scheme, it stands for greater unity in the name of the country.
It advocates for individual freedoms, but not at the expense to divide people against their own countrymen. Nationalism is not fascism; it is not esoteric to one ideological group, it promotes strong national unity without divisiveness. Nationalism does not promote imperialist dogmas, nor does it police global affairs according to financial interest alone.
Nationalism gives credence to alternative thinking to allow other progressive thinkers that don’t agree in terms of evolutionary dogmas to express their point of view. Nationalism will allow subjects like Intelligent Design, Fine Tuning and Forbidden History to become educational alternative choices in classrooms all around the country, fostering new interest among young children tired of evolutionary propaganda.
Nationalism will help eradicate criminals in dangerous neighborhoods and install unity while strengthening the workforce to encourage national prosperity among all communities countrywide. Nationalism will allow youth labor to start early in order to inculcate at an early age how to be financially stable with hard work and discipline while attending school. This is badly needed; our youth needs to work harder to compete in the already contended world market. Neo liberalism has created dependency on young adults that bestow opportunities to illegal immigrants lacking effort to work any lower skilled jobs.
Military education will be taught in many low income areas; study, discipline, acceptance and values will be restored back into the system alongside new basic civil freedoms with popular acceptance. Nationalism will grant equal sex marriages in the name of public recognition; ending the schism between radical fanatic religious creeds, and extreme forms of Neo-liberalist. Homosexuals, lesbians and transgender that fight for the country’s interest will be recognized for their invaluable sacrifice, and not forgotten. For real courage comes from people that pay the ultimate sacrifice at the cost of their own life.
No longer will radical groups prevail and Neo-liberalist propaganda will be suppressed. Religious extremist groups sponsoring hate will follow the same faith. No longer will divisions spur national disunity as nationalism will end all tumult. Conservatives and liberals will live under the umbrella of national unity.
If we don’t act now to revert the situation with Nationalism, in the next few years we won’t have a nation to stand. If another great depression strikes it will create the perfect ideological storm and lead the nation toward a gruesome civil war. History irrefutably shows ideological revolutions are not nice.
Comments Off on Nationalism will firmly unite the nation
By Jaime Ortega.
The inception of Neo-liberalism is deeply enrooted in the dawn of mankind. The historical-cycle of liberalism is directly intertwined with the rise and fall of past civilizations. All cultures share a similar facet of power and decline thereof.
- When nations rise to become superpowers these are characterized with large population numbers, strong nationalism and military strength to project the core of its stabilization. New nations that turn into superpowers generally plan regional preeminence to gain strength and transform territory inculcating a new social order to expand globally. When land and marine trade routes are fully controlled, new regulations emerge to change the laws of the old system. Resources ship in and out at high volume; national growth continues to increase and financial prosperity influences the apparent transformation of society. National pledge is viewed with honor and courage to all class structures that respect military efficiency. Crime is at its lowest level during the first phase of civilization because fervent black and white laws encourage fear over institutional imprisonment; violent criminals, gangs and outlaws are dealt with instant execution and implacable punishment. As people recover from poverty, work rate accelerates allowing new companies to double production rates. This is also true for state run production chains. The labor force throughout this initial stage struggles financially to sustain a decent living standard, but with time, achieves prosperity. Unqualified people work in all low income jobs during the first phase as unemployment drops. Strong national values are reinstated to suppress demonization of national unity trough military power. Discipline, regulations, conservative values, strong nationalism, unity and military dominate the first phase of a nations rise to power. (Example United States, before1940’s)
- In the second phase of a civilization, after 6 to 7 generations a new phenomenon occurs. The nation continues the leading superpower, but a new generation of idealist emerges from the social ranks of middle-class and elitists. This generation is incongruent with the ruling system advocating for prosperity and peace instead of patriotism, force and war. With abundant wealth cascading the system, living standards show the highest levels of conformity and struggle changes into relaxed financial stability. New philosophers influence educational reforms no longer accepting to participate in foreign quarrels, viewing war unnecessary to achieve peaceful goals. Discipline in all vocational levels starts to modestly decline with unions sponsoring hourly job reductions. With new thinkers religion and conservatism drift slightly backwards. The new generation questions the moral standard in which the nation stands and struggles to seek change. They become revisionist instead of conformist, campaigning for greater rights in the name of diplomacy; waving the flag of liberty to modify the current political establishment into a new social order without need of religious consent. Society starts to show signs of ideological change. Nationalism still remains active in the nation, but the new thinkers start to radically influence the next generation planting new seeds that will guarantee the continuance of their political dogma utilizing education to funnel their propaganda. Activism is common during this phase. (Example United States reaches the great 1950’s with financial prosperity – but in the 1960’s the peak thwarts with the Vietnam War, and activism starts to show signs of change)
- In the third phase of civilization, generation 8 to 11, the nation has being radically transformed with the indoctrination of the earlier adopters. Nationalism is viewed totalitarian. Military is viewed anthropomorphous and religion is viewed primitive thinking. At this point in time, the liberal reformist don’t just become thinkers, they subtly control all levels of education and society. The youth grows in the midst of ideological anarchy. Morality becomes abstract; strict discipline is viewed oppressive and detrimental to society and freedom. Eccentric liberal Idealist control behavior and political correctness comes into sight. Military enrolment sharply declines at this phase viewed as ‘culturally repressive’, not representative of the new political order. Work ethic falls dramatically, materialism stifles the lower middle class and unqualified people pick and choose jobs not based on survival, but on the standards that suits them better creating a larger welfare state plagued with preventable unemployment for those nations that can afford it. Crime drastically increases; the judicial system becomes tolerant-oriented by institutionalizing violence. Rival aspiring superpowers for the first time start to eccentrically consolidate global power via military to impose their presence undermining retaliation from the declining superpower. Schism in society dangerously steepens disunity; traditionalist versus new age reformist. Two sets of opposite ideologies thwart the nation’s future to create civil-strife. The right is now boxed inside a cage. Liberalism protects all underserved levels of society that where once viewed as cancerous to the nations interest. (Example – This transformation started to grow stronger and stronger each decade from the 70’s – 80’s – 90’s – 00’s – 10’s…)
- In the fourth phase a revolution sparks. Traditionalist, conservatives, religious devotees, nationalist, and the military unite to combat the liberalization of government on society. Neo-libertarians view the uprising as seditious toward progressivism. Signs of a civil war brink the end of a waned superpower. The government starts to collapse within its own pillars with no agreement reached by either side. The extreme and moderate right no longer trusts the left, showing a blind eye to any proposed concessions made. At this point only three options remain:
- Reach common understanding to reunite the nation (improvable)
- Split the nation into two separate countries (Probable)
- Full fledge civil war directed to retake the country by force (Very probable)
The founding fathers fought English colonialism to mold the American constitution. Sacrifices were made to achieve national freedom; Washington burned, Tea-Party members were massacred and rural patriots hanged. The ‘peace with strength’ model broke the bonds of enslavement with a brutal Civil-War that killed Confederates and Union members. United States entered War World 2, to stop a conspicuous military superpower from achieving its goal to control the world.
In the end of the spectrum, neo-liberalism marks the end of a superpower; it surges from national prosperity fueled by military supremacy, but it takes the opposite approach when austere liberal idealism reforms education. Neo-liberalism rises out this cycle like a virus and punishes nationalism labeling it a ‘crusade of ignorance’ for the sake of ideological tolerance. The youth becomes anti-establishment and anti-government rebelling to the core-principles that define national unity, in exchange for progressive utopias not proven to exist.
The point I am trying to make with this argument, is that the US has already reached the third phase of this historical cycle to the point of no return. Democrats and republicans show decadence in government failing to address the real ideological problems the nation is about to withstand. Unlike the past, republicans are drawn closer to leftist dogmas pushed by the historical winds of Neo-liberalism in the ending phases of power to gain popular acceptance.
The only possible way to reunite the nation is with strong nationalism which will bury the radical progressive left allowing the US to remain a global superpower for at least 20 more years. With the possible prospect of a future financial collapse, if the system has not changed then; sooner or later, we all doomed to watch the events of the fourth phase unfold.
Comments Off on The four phases of a superpower’s lifespan
The Daily Journalist.
The Russian steal fist has allowed the army of Syrian President Bashar Assad, to make significant progress in its fight against the rebels. Backed by Moscow, the Syrian government forces on Monday fought the fiercest battle since the Russian operation began on 30 September. But these days Moscow also used the velvet glove to try to win Saudi Arabia, a major player in the Syrian conflict but whose approaches are opposed to the Kremlin.
Nearly two weeks after joining the war in Syria, Putin made this weekend to win a the heart of the Saudi defense minister, Mohammed bin Salman gesture, using Formula 1 racing event in Sochi. But the operation has not worked: Riad continue to support opponents of Assad. And require that the Syrian leader leaves power.
But the initiative now is back on the side of Assad, thanks to the Russian air support; backed by 20 Russian bombers, they took the town of Kafr Nabuda in the province of Hama, as part of an offensive to regain territory in the center of the country. Yesterday the struggle for control of the city continued.
Moscow said its aircraft bombed 53 terrorist targets in Syria in 24 hours in the provinces of Homs, Hama, Latakia and Idleb. US, which is now waging a pulse with Russia in Syria, launched last Sunday parachute ammunition in northern Syria to rebels there.
The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said yesterday that the talks had made progress in relations between the two countries, which are economic partners but rivals in the area. Washington and Riyadh disagree “so far” totally, Lavrov said that in diplomatic language means that little progress has been made.
Two weeks later, Russia is still reviewing the damage balance its military incursion into Syria, which has angered governments, each in its own way are supporting the armed opposition in a while. The first red light came on when Gazprom admitted on October 7 that would have delayed the great Turkish Stream gas pipeline project, a key project for the Russians to bring their national treasure -the expenses to European markets.
Ankara is upset by the two Russian fighters raids invading its airspace, but also because the Russian army has attacked moderate forces that have Turkish support. Moscow, which insists that its enemy is the Islamic State has chosen these objectives that posed a serious threat to his protege.
For Saudi Arabia it is essential that Assad falls and it has spent large amounts of money to achieve that cause. A Saudi source sad the Minister of Defense, had told Putin that Russia’s intervention could intensify the war and inspire militants from around the world to fight in Siria.
The Russian government had made significant progress this year to encourage Arab investment in the Russian economy. This collaboration is particularly important now, with Europe and the US encircling the Russian economy with sanctions and restricting their access to credit.
Russian assets are exporting their weapons to Egypt, who have made much progress in their relationship. And offer its technology to build nuclear power plants in countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Turkey. Moscow has failed to make peace with Riyadh.
But maintains a good business climate with the Egyptians, who have not joined the chorus of criticism against the Russian bombings. Relations between Cairo and Moscow have improved in part by cooling between the Egyptian authorities and the White House.
The Kremlin is aware that dialogue between the US and Saudi Arabia not going through its best moment, and in his new role of power in the region directly involved tries to prove luck allying to the Saudis, bitter rivals and energy involved in one of the main weaknesses of Russia: Caucasus jihadist terrorism.
In 2013 talks between the Russian government and the Saudi failed because the latter tried to enforce in negotiations “control” exerted on terrorists in Russian republics such as Chechnya. Blackmail that Vladimir Putin refused to accept. Before Sunday and there were Saudis Russian contacts, but privately.
Senior government officials in Riyadh warned Lavrov in New York that the military escalation in Syria can prolong the conflict. The Saudis and other Sunni powers fear that Russia and its actions in the area are the catalyst for greater Shiite influence in the region.
Comments Off on Russia tries to court Saudi Arabia
By Jaime Ortega.
Not all democrats support Neo-liberals; usually, moderate liberals also have discrepancies with Neo-liberals. Neo-liberals themselves have different ideological perspectives that conflict with one another, but they all unite in eradicating any form of conservatism which traditionally embraces nationalism. These extremist thinkers are trying to change the constitution under which the US was established; into a world where science, technocracy and diplomacy become the thumb of rule.
As I predicted a few years ago, the evident wane of US hegemony will cause a global shift in international affairs directed by geo-strategic players like Russia, China and possibly India. This shift began in the US decades ago with the rise of liberalism, which gained momentum over the years; the new generation of liberal chauvinist, the Neo-liberals, has enforced an ideological scuffle in government directed against conservative values. The decline has extended to the geo-political arena, where other nationalist countries have started to wake up from slumber to permeate their international influence in the world stage with increased military action.
Once one of these aspiring superpowers wages military campaigns without respect for US sovereignty, it’s an unmistakable historical sign that the situation will escalate in the present future. China and Russia have detected weakness on the part of US foreign policy, and have recently launched military campaigns in Ukraine, Crimea, the South East Asian Sea and Syria as part of the forthcoming geo-strategic swing.
Obama’s austere response to Assad’s regime after the Ghouta chemical attack on Damacus in Syria, has clearly shown the Achilles’ heel of US intervention policy after Obama vowed to attack Syrian Army strongholds in retaliation for using sarin-gas on civilians, but flaked soon afterwards from his remark.
The foreign perils brought by neo-liberalism in the past 2 decades has weakened the US military core substituting the phrase ‘peace through strength’ praised by Ronald Reagan, for gibberish progressive jargon which has deteriorated the core-belief of nationalism, patriotism and militarism. This is evident in Europe where liberalism over the decades has tainted the notion of nationalism creating dissension among autonomist, regionalist and separatist that diverge with state sovereignty.
The Neo-liberalist hostility toward national conservatism won’t be left unnoticed. After years of manipulating education and media outlets to demonize religion and military, this has resulted in a battle of moral attrition that won’t favor liberalism as history unequivocally shown in other past civilizations with faded nationalism.
What the American people should expect in the upcoming years are conservative states in the south that will increasingly question federal government proceedings for their national and geo-political demise; these conservative states will eventually veto all reforms initiated by neo-liberal states bearing in mind the present austere antipathy they experience with education, military and religion.
As the economy slows, taxes increase, global hegemony shifts, foreign markets spread, new political dogmas emerge and evident ideological discrepancies start to erode nationalism; Neo-liberals in their quest to control the US government will find themselves wedged in the middle of disunity to implode a second civil war.
The high rise of ignorance started by Neo-liberalism will take part in the political debacle; capitalism will also trigger hate among high unemployed low socio-economic Americans that visualize the government as conspirators against their own people. Ignorance, treachery and materialism will swerve dramatically against those that endorse their values; Materialism, skepticism, slothfulness, the idea of ‘survival of the fittest’, scientific validity, global unawareness and other factors have created the perfect conditions for an abrupt revolution to take place in the US.
Desperation from both political ends will provoke national paradox. Southern separatist will promptly reemerge in great numbers. Political assassinations directed at congressmen will unfold and turn into riots, and riots will turn into political assassinations. Southern states will defy the US constitution and finally separate to become independent.
The military will fathom the situation, abet with southern states and betray the Neo-liberal government which they view as insubordinate. This has become apparent with the Pentagon rejecting Obama’s foreign policy reform in the Middle East as an act of defiance to US sovereignty; just as Bill Clinton cut troops during his administration to cement his legacy, Obama has also cut troops in Alaska, Iraq and Afghanistan to promote an imaginary laissez-faire world for the sake of his legacy without military endorsement; it will inevitably backfire.
The odds of the US splitting into two separate countries will appear soon after an economic recession strikes the foundations of the already precarious financial system. The consequences won’t shuffle in favor of what most liberals predicted as they acted unwisely, vilifying others that opposed their worldview; powerless and without a military to protect their interest, they will view the rise of the military as seditious towards liberty.
The Neo-liberal establishment that once viewed religious followers as primitive thinkers, conservatives as ignorant rednecks, and the military apparatus like brainwashed cavemen will succumb by those it once mocked.
If the split happens under the right circumstances a civil war can be prevented and two nations will arise from the ashes of the old US; If, on the other hand the military decides for all Neo-liberal states to submit all national sovereignty to the armed forces, revolts will spark followed with a brutal civil-war that will annihilate millions of Americans. Considering the size of the US, a civil war could last well over a decade.
Europe will no longer be capable of maintaining global security. The US will cease all foreign occupations; friends and allies will be left behind, and trade laws will change in favor of the new superpowers. Taiwan, Saudi Arabia and Israel will suffer the biggest challenges with the abrupt geo-political change. NATO, eroded by liberal influence will militarily succumb with the global shift and lose all powers. Without the US, the world will be supervised by Russia and China.
The US will no longer retain the worldwide influence it once had, and by the time the national split occurs the world will have to curtsy to Chinese and Russian demands. The ancient Persian dominance will notably take place in the Middle East with Iran.
Some people view my prediction farfetched. Those who don’t see these events unfold mostly willingly ignore history is cyclical and not progressive; ignorance, laziness and materialism have created brainless people who believe everything they are told. Manipulating educational institutions to reject alternative theories has made the ignorant population aware of a possible conspiracy aimed at destroying religion and nationalism on behalf of science.
Diplomacy and democracy sponsored by technocrats and Neo-liberalist have completely aggravated the notion of nation, sovereignty and military into a world of fantasy orchestrated with the notion of peace without strength. It’s time to reconsider the serious repercussions Neo-liberalism will pose to the nation’s future once a financial recession shakes the pillars of the US economy while losing power abroad.
Republicans and democrats pan one another in congress, but fail to address the real issue; the ideological phenomena that will destroy the core of American hegemony. The US can survive the next financial turmoil with strong nationalism, but it cannot survive the ideological schism boiling and continue to thrive as a superpower.
Heading toward the second American Civil War
Comments Off on Heading toward the second American Civil War
By Jaime Ortega.
The man who wasn’t aware
There was a man that suffered an accident, broke his spinal cord and ended paralyzed from his feet. He roamed his house in a wheelchair with nothing to do, but to read books, watch television and stare at the neighboring houses through his balcony.
His brother in law concerned for his mental condition, stress and personal affliction, to help ease the pain bought him a telescope so he could observe the night stars. Instead of studying the stars, the paralyzed man routinely spied on the apartments across the street. Staring at people’s windows through his balcony, he realized that one of the apartments always had a locked window blocked with a curtain that screened the blurred light.
As time passed, he became obsessed with spying on his neighbors. One day, observing the mysterious window, he saw two shadows moving violently; panicked, he decided to grab his cell phone and called the police to report assault charges. In the report, he stated to the officers that he saw what looked like “two older people fighting rapaciously” through the blurry window covered with a curtain.
When the police officers arrived to the scene at approximately 11:23pm, knocking on the door, a woman with a cooking apron came out with her two children. The officers explained to her that a neighbor had reported a suspected assault in her apartment.
The mother laughed and told the officers that her two kids started to wrestle in the living room and that nothing other had happened. The officers went inside the apartment to check for anomalies, but seeing nothing was wrong they left and reported a misunderstanding.
The enlarged shadows the paralyzed man witnessed through his balcony were nothing else than an elongated version of two children wrestling — not two people trying to kill each other.
The point of this story is that looks deceive, especially when the windows are closed and the curtains blur reality from fiction.
Miscalculation…but on point
Just like the paralyzed man that miscalculated the situation, so are those viewing the US Government as conspiring against its own populace. In general, politicians help citizens by amending laws to protect their rights to secure their basic freedoms. Democracy is flawed, but despite controversy, history shows that living in the US comes prosperous to immigrants who flee poverty .
One out of three Americans now use Snap-card benefits to prevent starvation. Stats show 44% of American children live amongst low income families. Many of these families use the Welfare system to survive and strive to come out from poverty to achieve greater financial stability.
These and many other signs are important to understand, to discard a government conspiracy against its own people. Past empires just as we see today, had cults among their elites running government, but history shows that the conspiracy traits suggested by NWO advocates never resumed into the general population; instead, assassinations targeting rivalries in power did occur throughout the past.
Historically religious creeds and cults have never unified to represent ‘one common’ vision because difference of interest will always blockade the road for global unity in humanity. The Jesuit priest will never bond completely with the Muslim radical imam or the Mormon priest because their view of the world has become severely altered by their interpretation of faith. This results into dissension, and dissension almost always results in conflict which leads to war.
One reason why massive conspiracy theories targeting all people would never work and will never take place is because through human history, emergent rival powers, almost instinctually take absolute advantage of any government stirring a sudden national crisis against its own people. Obviously such threat would result into a civil war as observed in the Middle East, that after the Arab Spring revolutions, the former authoritarian governments lost all power once the conflicts ended.
Jesus said that “a house divided against itself, will not be able to stand,” and this is a true historical perspective. If the US wages a NWO starting in America, history shows a civil war will automatically spark; meanwhile, Russia and China will lick their chops, take US interest worldwide and split the remnants between the two new superpowers leaving American hegemony a thing of the past.
History suggest that conspiracy advocates that view the future with conspiracy lenses blaming Knight Templars, Illuminati, Masons, Jesuits, Rothschild’s and other cults and families with all current global events, have a biased view of world affairs and distort facts just alike the blurry pictures depicting UFO’s to prove their existence.
Conspiracy theories come in many different forms, from reptilians to UFO’s, demons, hidden monsters, secret elites, ancient cults, super corporations and the list goes on and on. Despite the vast list of conspiracies, even the most avid conspirators get confused in who is running what; once again, blurring fact from fiction into a world of fantasy, drama and evil plots. In other words, imaginary superstitions.
However, the US does have one field sponsored by Neo-liberal propaganda which promotes immediate academic censorship on anything that opposes its core belief. I wouldn’t call it a conspiracy, but a totalitarian system within the US Government that ‘runs lose’ to promote a scientific agenda to extinguish any faith in the metaphysical world.
The US government thus far struggles with unity, internal divisions have shut government on multiple occasions and will continue to fail to achieve a unifying consensus as other superpowers rise. This comes at a time when Neo-liberalism has created dissension between military, nationalism and religious consent.
Conspiracies are challenging the future of the government
During the past two years, after reviewing a myriad of conspiracy theories in social media, I’ve come to the final conclusion that the American people and the US Government no longer hold a trustworthy relationship.
The newer generations not only distrust, but completely blot out any possibility to accredit government accounts in national and international events reported in mainstream media outlets. Politicians and people suffer a static marriage adamant to absolute failure.
The rise of conspiracy theories has started to dwarf the future associated with the next generation of politicians whom aspire to lead the US government one day. According to a recent survey taken by The Daily Journalist, 70% of people believe the government holds some sort of evil plot against its citizens.
Neo-liberals attack on education: Ignorance nourishes foolishness
The seeds of new generations are planted during the augmentation of alternative ideologies within the cultural rise of national affairs. With the rise of democratization and freedom of speech, the US political system automatically allowed for the sudden rise of conspiracies to take place. As a consequence, freedom of speech has evolved into outright demonization of US armed forces by opposing government intervention in foreign lands under the imaginary umbrella of oligarchic tyrannical plots.
With the rise of Neo-liberalism, skepticism has transcended into full ignorance. New schools of social thought have diverted history into a state of scientific paradigm designed to suppress all religious orders, thus crusading a campaign against ignorance in the name of scientific skepticism.
High Schools, universities and colleges fire professors and discipline students who question the current educational curriculum. The hypocrisy of Neo-liberalism is that it strives to find educational reforms ousting religion, but when challenged with alternative theories, these institutions that proclaim to sponsor debate reciprocate as authoritarian regimes censoring opposite ideas that are viewed contrary to their belief system.
A recent poll taken by The Daily Journalist shows that 91% of Americans believe in a supernatural being. The interesting correlation is that historically the educated (the remaining 9%) almost always remained a small minority in other empires; in contrast, the majority subjugated their authority to the reprimands of small influential elites that dictated reforms in the status-quo without popular consensus.
Theocratic, autocratic, totalitarian and democratic based countries share the same moral conundrum, mainly because all political structures always rely on a minority to rule a majority of people. With democracy, the educational system has being usurped by technocrats that foster Darwinian austerity.
The result is that ousting ignorance has boosted ignorance; skepticism has formed more skepticism. Children’s IQ’s have drastically fallen in the US because kids no longer create; they only follow and obey to never question the pillars of modern science. Other well researched theories have festered contingency with Darwinian evolutionary propaganda, which in return suppress alternative historical and scientific knowledge into a category of fantasy, fables, myths and fairy tales.
With history and other fields of study subjected to an evolutionary agenda, all discoveries must oblige with the leading theory to satisfy the national curriculum sponsored by hardcore Neo-liberals that oblige atheism. Subjects like ’Forbidden History’ not only drill holes on the evolutionary version of history, but severely haze our comprehension of the past. With the institutional ban on subjects like ‘Forbidden History’ it is comprehensible why skeptics of Darwinian Theory view education as a safe haven for atheistic propaganda.
Neo-liberals sleep with the US Department of Education to control all sectors of education, turning a blind eye on alternative explanations by immediately gunning down contradictory explanations. Thousands of scientists from all disciplines of academia around the world, conscientiously grieved with the system, kneel down to the modern ‘Catholic Church’ repression – the Darwinian hegemony!
For Neo-liberals it is important to control education at all levels to successfully inculcate Darwinian propaganda because in doing so, the next generations belief-core will blossom ideological warfare against unexplained theories to keep the atheistic lineage alive.
Evolution won the battle, but not the war!
As the Neo-liberal community continues to control the national scientific agenda presented in mainstream academic institutions to prevent the rise of religion, social media with help of the internet has help challenge the mainstream agenda creating an alternative channel to funnel history without Darwinian filters.
Methods applied to control people, historically, never turn in favor of those who apply it. People are naturally visceral with top to bottom consensus. As a result of Darwinian scrutiny, creativity and parallel explanations rattled into ignorance, and ignorance has risen sturdily to crusade a campaign against evolution by relating its canon with a plot to subvert people to a New World Order with the ultimate mission to crush religious consent.
The youth labels politicians thanks to Neo-liberalism, as massive conspirators created by secret societies to rule the world by deceiving the government to ultimately permeate their imaginary power around the system to the bottom of the hierarchical structure. It is this mistrust caused by heavy censorship in academic subjects like Forbidden History that has molded into an ideological cancer that will with time destroy the same system by which it was created.
People view the US Government an evil institution designed to hide demonic religious cults that sponsor atheism to create a world free of religion targeting mostly the Christian faith. The problem is that not just Christians, but alternative faiths whether scientific based or not, also view politicians as mass conspirators that promote a New World Order.
So by censoring historical data to fit the theory, even those who believe in evolution now question the scientific standards by which the academic system filters new discoveries.
The rise of Neo-liberalism would have never socially progressed without Darwinian Theory. It is the Darwinian belief system that keeps the neo-liberal establishment healthy, steady and financially prosperous. Eventually like any form of power, history demonstrates, it too will collapse into another social revolution.
The main mission for most neo-liberals is to protect at all cost the theory of evolution to prevent religious progressives from consolidating new ideological reforms to halt the spread of modern scientific thought. Darwinian evolution is the western rational filter to keep Islam, Christianity, Catholicism and Mormonism and other ideological creeds at bay.
Darwinism came from Protestantism
Neo-liberals and liberals easily forget that the liberties they presently enjoy started with the Church of England. The protestant reformation of Europe questioned the supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church, challenging its repressive prerogative authority by means of allowing all people to read the bible to foment literacy during the darkest ages Europe has ever experienced. The Guttenberg Press was the first social innovation that led to the imminent rise of education during Europe’s theological reformation thanks to the bible.
The Church of England became a superpower at the time the Spanish Empire, Rome’s military wing, started to decline financially and militarily. With the rise of Protestantism, England started social reforms thanks to the core belief that all men are created equal despite their sinful nature.
England soon experienced incredible financial revolutions. The infamous ‘Industrial Revolution’ galvanized the economy transforming the entire world. Evangelical Christians sponsored by the Queen of England travelled around the globe to places like India, Hong Kong, South Africa, British Columbia and other colonies to help spread literacy and Christianity changing the lives of millions of people.
After centuries of ideological repression from Rome, free thinking and scientific rationality was tolerated which eventually gave birth to the Origin of Species written by Charles Darwin.
It was through Protestantism, that Darwinian evolution sprang a new scientific revolution. Without the Reformation, Europe’s illustrious ‘Enlightenment’ would have never ‘evolved’ under Roman Catholicism. The Protestant movement changed Europe, ceding tolerance to controversial ideals stifled under other religious establishments that reigned prior to it.
Modern evolution spits on the plate that fed it
The Neo-Liberal establishment in the US willingly makes no distinction between Roman Catholicism, Islam and Protestantism. Protestantism was the hand that fed Darwinism, the modern Neo-Liberalist core-belief; Neo-liberals and liberals in return have mocked evangelical Christians labeling derogatory terms, as if all were brainless ignorant fable worshipers.
Ironically religion played a role in the development of most civilizations in history. Science was vital for the subsistence of the Mayans, Incas, Egyptians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Hindus, Babylonians, Persians, Romans, Greeks and myriads of other known and unknown cultures. With the discovery of even more ancient civilizations, we are only starting to grasp the technological advancement and mathematical accuracy these religious based cultures possessed; paradoxically many architectural wonders even challenge our technological achievements, showing hard to replicate despite our advancement.
Sadly the Neo-Liberal establishment obliquely has given birth to a conspiracy world that will soon reciprocate against them. Most people in the world are religious by nature, and to try to impose Darwinian scrutiny on new progressive thinkers at the cost of censoring all alternative theories can only result in the public defamation of the US Government that hearten the Neo-Liberalist propaganda with taxpayer money.
To be frank, even though I don’t agree with most modern conspiracies, I do agree that the scientific community has gone out of control with their agenda to manage all fields of study.
In essence, we should stop such fervent agenda from controlling all modern alternative theories that oppose its basic scientific tenants; because Evolution is still till this day, nothing else but a theory on the verge of collapse just as Neo-liberalism will one day revert into the bookshelves of history after another ideological form buries takes place.
Comments Off on The rise of the US anti-establishment conspiracy
By Jaime Ortega.
African Americans need to clean house before its too late
Picture for one second a world ruled by chaos. A world where opportunities lay waste; where looting, law breaking and tribal sublimation consume the roots of our current, yet not perfect system. A world without police enforcement, a world where greed is in the hands of uneducated people, where governments no longer hold responsibility for anything.
A world where ignorance, violence and lack of personal responsibility fuse to create a society based on the survival of the fittest. A world where drug abuse erodes the minds of talents, zombies are let wild, and laws are created by individuals to subjugate their authority over others using force without diplomacy.
That world, is the utopian planet of Neo-Liberalism. Violence stems from human beings, people then structure hierarchical forms of government to control it, mainly using police and military to close the wounds open by rebellions to secure the interest of the overall majority.
That world is not my world.
Accusing doesn’t solve the problem, it creates it
In the biblical story of the Garden of Eden, Adam instead of recognizing his fault, blamed Eve for eating the prohibited fruit. In the story Elohim condemned the serpent, Eve and Adam; instead of identifying his personal fault confessing his responsibility, pride took control of Adam and accused Eve, the consequences of his actions painfully haunted his future.
Crime and violence in some context represent the prohibited fruit, and what we are witnessing with the rise of ignorance. The African American community is responsible for their actions, and blaming the establishment when other ethnic-minority groups are succeeding makes people unsympathetic to their struggle. Like the story in Adam and Eve, one day it will hunt them if they don’t start cleaning house and dealing with the problems of their community.
Times have changed
African American movements like Black Lives Matter encourage the misconception that police enforcement detains suspects based solely on racial profiling. Frankly, police in general roam the streets everyday minding their own business without participating in political activism that targets Afro-American hatred. Police officers have the difficult task to serve and protect communities from crime, civil unrest and riots.
Long gone the days Jim Crow laws and street lynching were an inescapable reality for most Afro-American communities down south. Unlike half a century ago, the present African American oppression is a prefabricated exaggeration crafted to justify thugs and criminals; blaming instead the lack of social progress, increased crime rates and violence in communities to government passiveness. Victimization has become the new social phenomena to excuse law infringement.
Millions of new minorities nationwide presently reside in large communities amid Afro-Americans looking for new opportunities to flee poverty. Many Hispanics, Middle Easterners, Indians, Asians, Africans and Europeans reside in low income areas searching for ways to grow financially and escape poverty to achieve greater living standards and social prosperity.
New ethnic minorities distrust Afro-Americans
The new ethnic American groups according to recent polls taken in Las Vegas by The Daily Journalist show that most minorities distrust Afro-Americans as a group; labeling them as criminals, pimps, gang affiliated drug dealers, shop lifters, crack heads, violence instigators and lazy people.
The poll suggest 93% Asians, 87% Hispanics, 91% Middle Easterners, 90% Indians, 83% Europeans and 88% of Africans view African Americans the root problem for socio-economic progress on their communities. That includes negative influence in public education for other non-Afro American kids who attend public schools.
Minorities also agreed greater protection must be enforced by police officers to secure local businesses in their neighborhoods, including less public support to organizations that provide Afro Americans constitutional rights to enhance “violent” social behavior.
Media war wages racial intolerance in favor of African-Americans
According to the Center for Disease, Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2014 the total number of firearm homicides per year mounts to 11,208, while homicides mount to 16,121. Just like computers, cops commit mistakes; the low number of questionable mistakes reported by mainstream media networks besieged against police enforcement is an insignificant number compared to the total amount of crime ranging the US.
In the past few years growing factions of Afro-American protestors backed by Neo-liberal lobbyist have initiated multiple campaigns against police enforcement evoking an end to violent raids targeting young African-Americans.
While liberal mainstream media plays an important role promoting the anti-police campaign, their cause has backfired on social media. In response to pro-African American network media, internet sites like Liveleak upload on a daily basis prejudiced videos of Afro-American teens beating Caucasians, assaulting stores and instigating violence; the videos have gone viral furthering wider racial antipathy in the web.
Afro-American internal division
African-American communities are divided in opinion. Some African-Americans backup the consensus that police brutality is not justified in their community, shifting the blame to the political system for lack of funding in their neighborhoods to achieve equal opportunities. On the other hand, African-American skeptics point that the government has little responsibility for the rise of ‘thugs and criminals’ and blame their community leaders for failing to address the real issues reflecting change in their neighborhoods to achieve social progress.
For most African-American neo-liberal’s, African American conservatives who disagree with their views are labeled as uncle toms along with other derogatory epithets. Contingencies are also growing strong between Afro-American war veterans who consider their sacrifice as part of their struggle for national freedom, and Afro-American neo-Liberals that view veterans as war criminals protecting a flawed racist political scheme: The flag burning movement sponsored by Neo-liberals free thinkers has created increased altercations between the two groups.
A psychological racial war has started to steadily escalate thanks to this controversial ideological divide, separating African-American communities that protect police intervention, over those who blame the ‘white establishment’ as the root cause for their civil struggle.
Neo Liberals hacked Afro-American resentment
The question for young African-American progressives lingers paradox in the stability of the nation’s future. Using democracy, the neo-liberals have inflated the democratic propaganda in congress to control ethnic issues by victimizing crime as an apologetic form of social injustice. Progressive democracy has not solved, but supplemented the growing animosity between Afro-Americans and new ethnic minorities.
The only solution to free African-American communities from racial stereotypes, and strengthen their broken bonds with the rest of US ethnic groups is by leaving the neo-liberalist agenda. Realistically, an authoritarian run government would radically transform the present failure of the judicial system — thus helping eliminate crime.
Government has being infiltrated by progressive thinkers that no longer sustain rational thinking. A stronger military presence in violent hoods would eliminate crime, stimulate military education and increase job opportunities under which the neo-libertarian utopian model has failed to accomplish.
Democracy is not the solution
History has repeatedly shown democracy to be the perfect system to abuse under the right social environment. We learned that lesson after the Arab Spring revolution in Egypt that hid islamization under the democratic banner led by the Islamic Brotherhood; later halted to a military coup d’état launched by former general Abdel Fattah El-Sisi.
The US on their quest to instigate the Middle East to become democratic, rallying revolts against regimes, has helped derail dictatorships into tribal rebellions turning the entire region into an Islamic sinkhole – thus the rise of ISIS, the present chaos in Syria, Iraq and Libya.
Ultimately democracy led Hitler into power in Germany. The Popular Front that consisted of a union of communist, Anarchist-syndicates, Marxist and labor movements in Spain also led to a fastidious civil war initiated by progressive egalitarianism.
First end crime, then racial profiling
The US government has to seriously review the judicial system. Prisons around the country swarm violent convicts that poison the system once reinstated back into society.
In order to safe and secure the streets and borders of the US, realist must review history for what it’s worth and use unorthodox methods to end crime from infesting cities. I solidly propose launching a ferocious military campaign in troublesome low income areas across the US to execute criminals with dangerous backgrounds to boost overall security for the nation’s stability ousting also neo-liberal austerity in government.
Democracy has failed to effectively contain the emergent criminal crisis that Afro-American and Latino communities over the decades have developed thanks to America’s drug addiction crisis. The prison system has failed to successfully reinstate dangerous gang members and criminals to society.
Fear is the key asset to stop crime, not granting dangerous criminals the opportunity to conduct more injustice like neo-liberals deem socially acceptable. This proposal will undoubtedly lead to a safer America for innocent hard working African-Americans and other ethnic groups; it would also vanquish the negative stereotype. Ethnic groups can coexist together not under the banner of neo-liberal democracy, but under hard work, unity and nationalism against the outside forces that divide it.
Once the problem of crime is finally solved and crime rates are virtually non-existent. Stiffer anti-racial laws and prosecution should be enforced to help protect hard working citizens from tedious law police misconduct. Only then, police integrity would be against the wall, if it fails to comply with ethnic tolerance; focusing the shift, into cracking down on police officers who defile the badge arresting people based on racial prejudice.
But first is first, we must help African-American and Latino communities by means of cleansing crime once and for all. To prevent a civil war, the US must clean up the gutters of society to maintain national stability at bay; then it must clean up the rooftop so it can preserve its international authority.
No change will drive a civil war
With the current neo-liberal demagogy Americans are doomed to succumb to the natural forces of history. We all win under strong nationalism, but as things stand with the ascension of neo-liberalism branches like Marxism, communism, minarchism and anarchism change is frankly impossible.
To be wise is to look into history and learn from its mistakes. If nothing is done, under a possible economic depression sporadic groups of gangs and criminals will emerge loot, riot and halt the possibility of economic recovery. Unlike the Great Depression where nationalism was deeply in-bedded on Americans, under an economic collapse, today’s generation is likely to revolt and destroy the American Landscape without possibility of recovery.
We must react.
Comments Off on Afro Americans need to clean house before its too late
By Jaime Ortega.
An ideological war between Neo-Liberals and nationalist jeopardizes America’s future. The subdivision of two distinct ideologies menaces to obstruct the future of the United States including its global hegemony. Since the Vietnam War the Neo-Liberal movement has grown significantly larger, stronger and wealthier; its mission, isolate the very fiber that unites American nationalism and exacerbate the military apparatus to diminish its national power.
Democrats believe patriotism is a setback for ideological progress. As the ideas of liberal progressives under Bill Clinton reached a climax in the 90’s, new forms of radical social libertarian ideologies creped on the Democratic Party imposing new social reforms to integrate a new system of government and substitute traditional nationalist values at the expense of military cuts. To end patriotism, neo-liberals demonized nationalism using institutions like Universities to promote their cause against military intervention by creating the illusion that pro-nationalist supporters are uneducated warmongers lacking common sense.
As ideological seeds with time successfully harvested anti-military resentment in most educational establishments across the country, the neo-liberalist movement continues to slander nationalist values labeling nationalism a ‘religious crusade’ to increase American influence worldwide. Seeking to destroy patriotism, neo-liberals subtly poison media networks to reproduce their propaganda in exchange for money, favoritism, progressive change and international appeal to satisfy other western nations.
The present results evidently show a decline in patriotism and a downfall in nationalist values. The results are indicative to the decline of US unity in ethnic, social and cultural progress nationwide. Without strong national unity, the US no longer can retain global supremacy, sidelined to witness the inevitable reemergence of other strong nationalist countries like China or Russia as a result of domestic radical neo-liberalism.
What was responsible for the ideological shift?
The blame cannot be exclusively attributed to neo-liberals. To an extent, the deep divide between left and right started in the past by religious ultra conservatives that opposed moderate civil right movements viewing civil change an evil stigma.
For decades, homosexuals, feminist, minorities and non religious citizens felt threatened by religious ultra conservative dogmas. Instead of commending a solution to alleviate the problem and unify the country, the Republicans joined forces with ultra religious factions that coaxed conservatives to gain wider campaign support in-exchange for distancing themselves from emergent moderate progressive ideals.
As time passed, the republican populist gamble to support religious orthodoxy inevitably backfired. The oppressed progressive minority has now transformed into a powerful movement with a vindictive distaste for nationalism and religion. All the unpopular civil right movements of the past now vindicate the ideals of Neo-liberalism, and rebuff the republican caucus as fake form of religious right wing bigotry. The liberal movement is stronger, wealthier and has the power to change elections.
Conservatism, religion and nationalist values were once seen as inseparable twins. The historical truth is that nationalism, religion and conservatism share similar face values, but their basis greatly distinct from one another. This view was not correctly disjointed by republicans.
An atheist can be a patriot and hardcore nationalist without being deeply conservative. A soldier might value the traditionalism of American culture, but might not feel indentified as a religious conservative. Homosexuals might be religious, conservative or traditionalist and might oppose liberalism — yet, the consensus among skeptics is that republicans would rather support straight men, some who might even rally against nationalism. That’s where republican logic and common sense go astray.
Support from radical religious factions has fractured the Republican Party. The high moral standard the Republican Party staked in favor for a few decades ago to accommodate ultra religious consent is now destroying the party’s reputation among increasing progressive voters.
People view the Republican Party as a bunch of blond racist supremacist, religious nut jobs and brainless warmongers. The party needs to exemplify extreme reforms in order to resonate with the biased public perception.
Democrats of the past
Democrats despite advocating for social reforms as pure centrist maintain a grip on conservative economic values. Democrats and conservatives in the past hesitated to change capitalism for other less financially quantifiable systems with stricter fiscal policies. Most democrats and republicans despite televised rhetoric see eye to eye in favor of elites that in return lobby for less financial restrictions to increase their corporate wealth.
Conventionally, the differences between the two parties are not on issues fixing the federal budget, but on social programs and funding military expenditure. At one point or another, the Democratic Party started to cater to other libertarian dogmas to gain wider acceptance from all domestic groups. This new support conceded greater power to democrats, that in exchange rallied against the principles of nationalism, US history in schools, traditionalism and global economic reforms.
Democrats sold their view of American supremacy from the conventional John F. Kennedy outlook of liberal political reforms, to other eccentric forms of neo-libertarian principles which past democrats rejected as plain anti-capitalist and anti-nationalist. Democrats now come in different shapes and colors; Marxist, Trotsky’s, anarchist, communist, minarchist, thugist etc, hide under the democratic veil rallying the banner of neo-liberalism to attain the total annihilation of nationalism.
Nationalism needs to vanquish Neo-liberalism
I believe strong national unity will help the United States stand for itself and rise amidst financial, social and ideological troubles. The present youth that supports the neo-liberal movement has gone out of control, opposing all reforms that sponsor nationalism; it has become a dangerous leftist peg that must be destroyed before it continues to engulf society with anarchist reforms.
I believe African Americans, Latinos, Asians, Caucasians, Middle Easterners, Indians and all other US ethnicities have to fight back against the evil forces that now represent Neo-Liberalism. The nation has to stop the integration of Marxism, Anarchism and communism inside the political class. The future of the nation and the military depend on it.
The liberal government has focused on civil rights scrutinizing on its path national unity as an evil religious crusade to stop domestic reforms. The Neo –Liberal utopia not only mocks, but neglects the sacrifice American soldiers underwent to achieve those freedoms Neo-liberal enjoys.
The danger to cede any control of government to neo-liberals is an issue that must be addressed by the military apparatus without congress approval. As animosity between progressives and republicans continues to grow, the neo-liberals campaign for excessive reforms and cuts in the military budget will weaken America’s stance as a global player. The timing couldn’t be worse, as Russia and China keep threatening US interested, testing America’s response.
The neo-liberal movement must be eradicated from government before it drags the entire country inside a death spiral without return. Once the US loses the number one spot globally, it won’t climb back as history has repeatedly shown with past declining powers.
Let’s spark a revolution, let’s unify the country, let’s back our military and let’s distance ourselves from liberal democrats who are destroying all that America stands for.
Neo-liberalism is part of the larger pie, but not the only slice, other troubles must also be solved.
We don’t need to change capitalism, or systems and solutions that work to our financial benefit. We must however end corruption, lobbying and enforce regulation on companies and banks that abuse the free market. The military does not depend on banks to survive; in fact, it is the banks that depend on military defense to run the economy. The military and strong nationalism is America’s greatest asset, everything else follows short.
History has clearly shown, there is no peace without war, there is no stability without destruction and there is no real reformation without might. Nationalism is the key and military the door. And if not soon dealt with, liberalism after an economic depression will turn democracy into another civil war — A military dictatorship as history shows.
Join the movement click here
Comments Off on Nationalism the antidote to end Neo-liberalism
Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.
He is considered one of the leading authorities on Islamic extremist networks, financing and operations. He serves as the Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, one of the world’s largest storehouses of archival data and intelligence on Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorist groups. Emerson and his staff frequently provide briefings to U.S. government and law enforcement agencies, members of Congress and congressional committees, and print and electronic media, both national and international. Since 9-11, Emerson has testified before and briefed Congress dozens of times on terrorist financing and operational networks of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the rest of the worldwide Islamic militant spectrum.
1) Abu Sayyaf was killed a month ago, how will that affect ISI operations in IRAQ and Syria?
I think the effect will be short lived. ISIS is an organization that has actually learned from the demise of core Al Qaeda. Its leadership structure is only superficially in the form of a pyramid. But those intelligence specialists tell that ISIS has learned the lessons from the demise of the core Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan by building in redundancy into parallel layers of leadership. So that if one leader goes down—killed or captured—his area of jurisdiction, whether it be ISIS finances or ISIS arms acquisitions or whatever, is not fatally affected. This by the way is one of the reasons why ISIS has remained so resilient in the face of some punishing US led strikes, albeit mostly ineffective. Its an asymmetric terrorist group that has created a symmetrical fighting organization—think of a conventional fighting force like the US Army which has multiple levels of built in leadership redundancy—that btw, is also fighting a symmetrical war unlike other terrorist groups. The only asymmetrical aspect of the ISIS strategy—and I don’t mean to be callous here—is the headline grabbing horrific decapitations and executions of hundreds and hundreds of those it has designated the enemy which it has captured, ranging from Yazidi men to western journalists to Arab soldiers to Shiite civilians.
2) ISIL just captured Ramadi, and are trying to expel Syrian Armed Forces from Palmyra what message does that send to the those countries that support logistically and militarily govern by Haider Al-Abadi and Al-Assad?
Well, they have already as you know captured Palmyra and have gone on to carry out a massive killing spree in the city of Syrian soldiers who did not make it out as well as other “enemies” it designated. But I am not so sure of what your question means. If you are asking me, what is the effect of iSIS victory in Palmyra on those that support Al-Assad, frankly that is limited to only a few entities: Iran, Hizbollah and Russia. And we see that both Iran and Hizbollah have just redoubled their support of Assad’s regime in the belief that ISIS has made too many inroads. If I have misinterpreted your question, let me know.
3) If ISIL theoretically defeated Syrian Armed Forces, and controlled mayor cities in Syria, will Jabat-Al-Nusra oppose an Islamic Caliphate govern by Al-Baghdadi? Would they fight each other, despite greeting their rhetorical alliance combating western forces?
Well, you raise a very interesting question that used to be very hypothetical but given the losses by Assad recently, is not so hypothetical any longer. It is my belief that if the Syrian Armed Forces were defeated, Jabat Al Nusrat would never concede that ISIS had achieved that victory but rather that Al Nusrat itself—not ISIS– was either mostly or partly responsible for the victory. Hence, Al Nusrat would never recognize ISIS as the dominant military and political conqueror of a “liberated” Syria. And since Al Nusrat is an outgrowth and effective franchise of Al Qaeda, it would not agreed to ISIS political dominance of territory that Al Nusrat has occupied or has sought to liberate. For the past year or so, we have witnessed a very tentative cease fire between ISIS and Al Nusrat, who prior to that had been fighting each other with vicious ferocity. But that defacto cease fire I believe would cease to exist if ISIS declared itself the sole political and military heir to the territory of a liberated Syria. And in that scenario, it is my belief that would be a “settling of accounts” between Al Nusrat and ISIS much as we witnessed in Afghanistan in the 1980’s between the 7 different Mujahideen factions once they victoriously ousted the Soviets.
4) The US, and NATO, have financially supported Kurdish Pashmerga Troops, to help fight against ISIL in Iraq and Syria, but without ground troops are western forces doing enough?
In an answer, no. Vietnam taught us the limits of air power. Air power alone cannot win wars. Boots on the ground are also required. Without American and other Nato boots on the ground, I just don’t see enough firepower by the valiant Kurds.
5) There is intelligence suggesting Recep Erdogan is supporting ISIL, with the help of Intra-Secret/Service-Intelligence in Pakistan because of their former ties with Saddam’s Bathist party who is entwined with ISIL fighting Kurds. Is this possible?
You have now entered the Middle East “Twilight Zone” (remember Rod Serling’s television series from the 1960s’?) where anything is possible and nothing is impossible. The only thing that I know for sure is that Erdogan has dragged his feet in joining the coalition against ISIS; he has refused to clamp down on the infiltration route to ISIS thru Turkey; he has refused to crack down on the illegal sale of black market oil by ISIS thru Turkish middlemen; he hatred for the Kurds is so visceral that he will do anything it seems to hurt them even if it means helping ISIS although indirectly; and finally because ISIS ultimately is the final perfection of the embodiment of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group whose values and belief system Erdogan religiously enforces (sometimes leading critics to charge him with being a self anointed Calif), then yes, anything is possible.
6) Is their a race between Al-Qaeda and ISIL to regain more power in the Middle East? The control of Lybia is not only ISIL’s target, but also Al-Qaeda’s?
Forget Al Qaeda. They are not looking to control the Middle East anymore. At this point they are looking only to hang on to franchises that are now defecting to ISIS. ISIS is the new kid on the block. ISIS is the only player in this race. Just look at the attacks in Saudi Arabia last week and in Tunis three weeks ago. And in northern Algeria. Al Qeda in Yemen is AQ’s only remaining star franchise.
7) Is there any other group outside of ISIL and Al-Qaeda who can present a serious hazard to western targets like the US or Europe?
I don’t see any other transnational group other than Hizbollah with the capabilities of hitting US or Europe. And Hizbollah’s threat is totally controlled by what Iran wants. And since Iran wants a deal with the sanctions lifted, Iran is going to play nice for the time being. But don’t expect that to last forever. And don’t expect Hizbollah to retire into an old age home even while it is still a player to be reckoned with via Israel. Remember until 9-11, Hizbollah was the terrorist group that had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group.
8) If ISIS takes down Assad’s regime, then it will be a battle between Al-Nusra, Ahrar- Al-Sham and ISIS because in Nov 2014, they started to attack each other. In case ISIS battled Al-Qaeda, and that is a high possibility, out of the two who would win? Who would receive more support from Qatar, Kuwait, KSA, Turkey and Pakistan? And who would be more successful in unifying with other jihadist groups like Ansar-Al Islam, Ansar Al-Sharia, Al-Tawid al Jihad, besides other smaller faction groups in the Middle East?
Already, ISIS has been battling the Taliban and winning their skirmishes as Taliban forces have been defecting to ISIS. Now when you raise the question of who would win in an Al Qaeda-ISIS confrontation, its hard to see that direct confrontation emerging at this time because the core Al Qaeda in Afghanistan has been decimated. What remains is Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS has not ventured forth into Yemen at this point. So the only possible convergence of a confrontation between AQ and ISIS would be between AQ surrogates, like Al-Nusrat and Ansar Al Sharia (not really a surrogate of AQ though). In this case, I think that ISIS would win hands down.
As for receiving support from those countries you mentioned, well you have to remember that ISIS is Sunni and so are those are countries overwhelmingly Sunni. Yet, there is no doubt that ISIS has been taking the battle to these Persian Gulf potentates, even though they are Sunni, because they are seen as Western puppets and committing apostasy. The question has been—ever since the US formed the Sunni coalition—how fierce will these Sunni oil rich regimes fight ISIS. Saudi Arabia certainly showed its military capabilities and willingness to flex it muscles going it alone but going against Iranian backed Shiites, a far more easily political target among its dominant Sunni population that ISIS.
Even though these Arab regimes have participated nominally in the joint US led coalition against ISIS, their participation has been quite wanting. In the case of Turkey, well its got so many conflicts of interests regarding its own interests visa-vis the players in the ISIS/Syria/Kurdistan/Iran spectrum that Turkey cannot be counted on to be a serious combatant against ISIS. Turkey despises the Kurds and sees their victories as threats to Turkish national security. Turkey also maintains good relations with Iran. And Turkey does not want to pick a fight with ISIS. Conversely ISIS has not shown any real desire to confront Turkey head on or destabilize it unlike ISIS’ attitude towards Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Jordan, Libya and even Egypt.
As for who would be more successful in unifying the groups, all you need to do is watch how the once-AQ dominated brigades in the Sinai switched over ISIS as did Al Shabab and Boku Haram, certain Libyan factions like we now are seeing with Ansar al Sharia. Military momentum and Islamic ascendancy are certainly with ISIS and those two are as powerful magnets among certain Muslim populations as is the force of gravity in the earth’s atmosphere.
9) Democracy does not to suit well the Middle East. Is this because politics will never take over religion? Is western democracy an illusion to reach in the Middle East?
Well, I would never use the term never. Remember the Protestant Reformation took hundreds of years and cost hundreds of thousands of lives. It just seems at the present time that the stars of democracy are not in alignment for many countries in the Middle East. But I would not put the blame on religion or claim that this is a permanent status.
10) A lot of children seem to adopt religious radicalism with danger. Will the hate towards the west ever change the minds of these Middle Eastern children, of is frantic radicalization a process that cannot be achieved by democracy?
I am not so sure of your question here. There is good reason to associate religious radicalism with danger. And that doesn’t just apply to Islam but applies to all religions. All religions, not just Islam, have their fanatics and killers.
Yet, Islamic terrorism is responsible for an average of about 65 to 70% of all international terrorism annually for the past decade according to US intelligence studies published by NCIS. Why the disproportionate amount of terrorism within the Islamic world? And when one looks at the state sponsored media and educational curriculum being studied in Islamic schools, not only in the Muslim world but also in the west, outside educators, ngo’s and investigators have found a frightening level of continued incitement, conspiratorial allegations against the West and glorification of terrorist violence (rather than an emphasis on pluralism and non violence and equality) that is a natural breeding ground for violence.
When the Palestinian Authority names and honors public squares on the West Bank in the memory of the most horrific terrorists who carried out mass murders, what does that tell the youth? When groups like CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, tell followers in the United States that the FBI is responsible for more “terrorism” than Al Qaeda, what does that invoke in the minds of its followers? When the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, like Sheik Yousef Al Qardawi, issue fatwas saying its religiously ok to kill Americans and Jews, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the consequences. And when Muslim dissidents are murdered in the streets—let alone apostates—because they were condemned as blasphemous for their views, what lesson is drawn by the next generation? You ask whether democracy can reverse this radicalization? I am not so sure. I think we in the west make a huge mistake in equating civil society with democracy.
11) History has shown that in 1258 the brutal seizure of Mongols in Baghdad, gave lasting peaceful effects in the region up to 200 years. We have adopted democracy, but an Iron fist seems to be a better alternative to the sectarian violence shown in the Middle East. Has the issue of extermination, historically seen in 12th century by mongol troops ever been presented in congress as an alternative to defeat global Yihadist to secure national and international interest worldwide?
Whoa, this may be above my pay grade. If we equate modern day authoritarianism (eg the Mubarak regime, the Qaddafi regime) with what you call the “Iron Fist,” there is no doubt that as they say in the American Express commercials, “membership has its privileges.” I personally am not a fan of authoritarianism over democracy but we have to be real here: In the 1930’s, Hitler used democracy to obtain power. So democracy in and of itself without the corollary values of an open pluralistic society is not a viable answer to sectarian violence. If anything, we have witnessed the tragedy of the Arab Spring turning into the Arab Winter because the nascent democratic movements were turned into violent jihadist power plays, leaving most of the populations more disenfranchised and more oppressed than even under their previous authoritarian rulers. But you have raised a civilization question that has never been answered and may never produce a final answer. .
– Will the issue of extermination be seriously examined only after another 9-11 strikes the United States?
Remember what Winston Churchill said right after Czechoslovakia was taken over by the Germans in 1938 with full complicity of Britain and France, “ Democracies act only when there is blood on the street.” How right he was.
12) What is the best issue to resolve the problem?
I don’t have one. Sorry. I can only tell you that we in the west are being been eviscerated by the adopted and delusionally progressive notions of multi-culturalism where no set of moral values is greater than any other. I totally disagree. I believe that the values of western civilization, of the separation of church and state, of gender equality and secularism are values that are morally superior to other sets of value systems. Of course, I will be charged with chauvinism, maybe even “fascism” for saying such a thing. But that proves my point.
If I cede ground to my critics, why should Hitler’s Nazi ideology be deemed morally inferior at the very least to other western value systems? Radical Islamic values are not mine. Nor ought they be accepted by the high priests of morality in today’s world as nothing more than religious fascism? The same goes with the Christian Identity Movement. But no one seems to have a problem recognizing the latter for that dangerous anti-civizational movement it is. Why it is so hard to recognize other values systems for the other regressive movements?
Comments Off on Interview: Present ISIL Middle East paradox?