May 18, 2017

Cracks in the Zionist-Saudi jihadist alliance: Israel-1st culture warriors vs. Arabist Pentagon

Over the decades, Israel has gradually joined the Sunni nations of the Middle East based on their common rival of Iran, which is neither Jewish nor Sunni, but Persian and Shia. That is despite the initial tension between the Jewish state and the Arab Muslim states in the region, who were often at war over Israel's very presence. But anti-Iranian politics makes strange bedfellows.

Iran will always serve as a force that other nearby nations will think about balancing against, because it has tended to absorb others within its sphere of influence rather than the other way around, since around 500 BC (Achaemenid Empire). The last time it was under foreign control for any length of time was in the 1400s under the Mongolian / Turkic rule of the Timurid Empire. Unlike the rest of the Middle East and North Africa, it fought off Ottoman imperialism (the Persians -- very tough negotiators, folks).

But now it seems that the Sunni players in the anti-Iran coalition may feel strong enough to start getting rid of Israel, who never really fit into their club of Arab Muslims. At least, if the Sunni extremist nations led by Saudi Arabia can get a quantum leap in their military power from Uncle Sam, who is also going to try to help put together a NATO-like alliance for the Sunni Arab nations.

When President Trump arrives in Riyadh this week, he will lay out his vision for a new regional security architecture White House officials call an “Arab NATO,” to guide the fight against terrorism and push back against Iran. As a cornerstone of the plan, Trump will also announce one of the largest arms-sales deals in history. ...

One main objective is to put forth a framework and basic principles for a unified Sunni coalition of countries, which would set the stage for a more formal NATO-like organizational structure down the line. [source]

So far, the potential members of Arab NATO are Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, and Egypt. If the purpose were simply anti-Iran, they could have made a "non-Persian NATO" that included Israel. Whether or not they eventually let in Israel, they certainly seem uneasy or unwilling to do so at the start.

The largest arms deal perhaps in history is also going to make Israel nervous because they might lose their edge in the region:

Finally — and this is the most speculative of everything I've mentioned — it's possible you'll see an announcement of the U.S. and Saudis working together on identifying Saudi defense needs over a 10-year period and talking about what the U.S. is prepared to sell the Saudis over that period. This part will be complicated because the U.S. must coordinate with the Israelis to maintain their "Qualitative Military Edge," the formal name for the U.S. policy of ensuring that Israel maintains military superiority over its neighbors. [source]

The cracks in the anti-Iran coalition over there are also starting to appear in the anti-Iran coalition back here.

On the one hand are the evangelical Judaizers who never quote the New Testament and worship Israel as their homeland. This is a grassroots phenomenon, which percolates up to the Congressional level, where conservative Republicans have to pledge to defend Israel in order to get elected. Democrats must do so as well because Jews are one of the key ethnic groups in their coalition based on minority identity politics. The media relies on a grassroots audience, so it too portrays Iran negatively vis-a-vis Israel, which the news consumers culturally identify more with than Saudi Arabia.

So, the Cultural Left and Cultural Right in Congress, along with the media, have a mostly Zionist angle on hating Iran.

On the other hand are the military brass who style themselves as the administrators of a global empire including the Middle East, where the primary commodity is oil (this attracts the energy industry alongside the Pentagon). Saudi Arabia has the #1 oil reserves, but it was also not under control of a European imperial rival of the US that could have blocked the Americans from taking it on as a client. (After WWI, Britain and France inherited the remnants of the dead Ottoman Empire outside of Turkey, and the Ottomans never got the Arabian Desert where the Saudi clan hailed from.)

This has caused the US military to become deeply committed to the main source of jihadism in the M-E and around the world, and that's why you rarely hear the brass use terms like jihad, Islamic terrorism, etc. That would implicate their ally Saudi Arabia, so they go with the vague "terrorism" phrase, which you can accuse any nation of supporting, and obscures the Islamic connection.

So, the Pentagon and the energy industry have a mostly Saudi angle on hating Iran.

This creates a tension between the power groups that oppose Iran for cultural reasons and favor Israel first (Cultural Right and Left, the media) and those that oppose it for geopolitical and economic reasons and favor Saudi Arabia first (Pentagon, Big Oil).

Here, for example, is some world-class kvetching from a Jew complaining about the Secretary of Defense saying that Israel's capital is not Jerusalem, that the Israeli settlements on Palestinian land are a sticking point in the M-E peace process, and that if that continues Israel will become an apartheid state:

Mattis’s ignorance is understandable because he hails from the US Military’s Central Command. The Pentagon’s area command responsible for the Middle East has one debilitating problem. It is a problem that guarantees that Centcom officers will fail to understand the Middle East and fail to win America’s wars in the region.

Centcom’s problem is that it deliberately does not include Israel.

As far as Centcom is concerned, Israel is not part of the Middle East. Israel is in Europe.

Centcom officers speak only to Arabs. And their Arab counterparts insist that Israel is the problem.

Rather than critically analyze this claim, Centcom officers internalize it. [source]

And bringing it back to the Arab NATO trip, here are some complaints that a Christian conservative Ted Cruz supporter has about the Pentagon's more Arab-friendly stance toward Israel:

NSC Advisor McMaster at a press briefing declined to say that Jerusalem belonged to Israel, and has been undermining the US relationship with Israel ahead of the Arab NATO trip, according to reporting by Mike Cernovich (whose sources have proven correct at least back to the tip-off about the airstrike on Syria, not to mention the scoop he had on Susan Rice being the unmasker of Trump officials' names in surveillance).

In fact (listen to Cernovich's report here), the alleged leak of classified information during Trump's recent meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister did not take place, since Trump just brought up a topic that had been in public media reports for months -- that ISIS was trying to find ways to get a bomb on a plane inside of a laptop battery. Instead, the real leak of classified info was to the Washington Post, from their source, who knew far more granular detail than the President (who does not get every little detail of every little report, unless it's "need to know").

That info could compromise an Israeli spy who is embedded with ISIS, who first found out about the laptop battery bomb plot. So the leak of all the specific details to WaPo from a White House source with extensive knowledge, is being treated as a major national security breach, that could also severely damage our relationship with Israel, who must now be wondering if the US can be trusted to keep a basic secret provided to them by Israeli intelligence agencies.

According to Cernovich's sources, McMaster is the only one who knew all of the pieces presented to WaPo, although his deputy Dina Powell could have known also, but they are really just two members from the same Pentagon / Deep State team.

The Pentagon faction of the anti-Iran coalition in America has made a decisive pre-emptive strike against their supposed anti-Iran partners from the cultural politics faction. The armed forces and oil industries will prevail over the cultural domains of the media, organized Jewry, and evangelical Christianity because US governmental support for nations in the Middle East is based on geopolitics and economics, not cultural affiliation.

Many on the Left and the Right portray Israel as having special powers over US policy, but we're already seeing how it's the jihadist nations that truly drive our policy. Israel used to be allied with them for a little while, so you could have said either one was the driver. But now it's clear.

Actually, it was clear before then -- we sided with Egypt over Israel in the Suez Crisis in 1956, and only brought on Israel as a source of local muscle when we saw them whip everyone's ass in the 1970s. And yet, the Arabians still have all that oil, and a much longer history of being our ally -- and when was the last time Israel whipped everyone's ass anyway? Ten years ago, they got driven out of Lebanon by a ragtag local militia (Hezbollah).

After its explosive birth, Israel looked to be a latter-day David slaying Goliath, perhaps bound to expand throughout the region after they took the Sinai peninsula, southern Lebanon, and the Golan Heights of Syria. But now they're turning out to be just another statelet in the Levant, a place that has never spawned a (land-based) empire that included key other places around the region. As demographic trends make a small minority out of the Ashkenazi Jews who are not parasitic Haredim, the brief South African style attempt at European colonialism will become a Middle Eastern country again (Palestinians and Mizrahi / Sephardi Jews).

If history is any guide, they will ultimately fall under the sphere of influence of long-term regional powers Egypt or Turkey. If Iran continues its influence in Syria, that would presumably block Turkey from becoming Israel's patron state to the north, and it would turn south toward Egypt for partnership. Egypt is also less prone to Islamic extremism than Turkey, especially now with Erdogan leading Turkey and el-Sisi leading Egypt. And Egypt would be the member of Arab NATO most likely to split off as a strong power of its own, not wanting to be made an equal to Saudi Arabia.

If the Zionists want to return to their ancient roots, what better way than by seeking refuge under Egypt's wings?

But we should not be so excited to become less burdened by Israel if it means we intensify our alliance with the jihadists in Saudi Arabia. We've already had one September 11th too many to trust those backstabbing Bedouin, and now their radical mosques are infecting Muslims right here in America who commit jihadist violence without even having to get through our borders.

Unfortunately, it will probably take some catastrophe to convince our military brass to finally GTFO of the Middle Eastern black hole. Russia and Iran vs. America and Saudi Arabia -- we've had so much success there, why not up the ante to include a nuclear rival?

The Pentagon has been going on one great long psychotic fugue for the better part of 30 years in the Middle East, and if it means allying with Israel and the pro-Israeli culture warriors in America in the short term, it would be worth it to out-maneuver the Pentagon from marching us into nuclear Armageddon.


  1. I left a series of comments to the same effect on Twitter. Israel cannot be too happy about this "Arab NATO" thing, which has the potential to turn against them one day.

    Israel's foreign policy is based on creating division and chaos in the Arab world; Arab NATO on the other hand is a unifying step. Ironically our greatest hope of seeing US involvement in this Saudi project derailed (in the short term, at least) may just be Israeli subversion of it.

    The hinge on which "Arab NATO" will either live or die (or probably live, but only in a meaningless way that qualitatively changes nothing) is whether the rift between Saudi Arabia and Egypt gets bridged or not.

    Saudi and Egypt are the two Arab powers of consequence; the rest are orbiters. And their relationship, while not overtly hostile (and in some ways, such as the war in Yemen), has become rather icy.

    The United States would obviously be the key mediator in any attempt to patch things up between them. We've already seen Trump extend a warm outreach to el-Sisi, so along with this trip to Saudi, the White House is clearly laying the groundwork for what could become a rapprochement between the two.

    El-Sisi is the real cipher here, as he's been ramping up relations with Russia at the same time (hosting joint military exercises). The game he's playing isn't hard to see - extending a hand to all sides (also been some growing Chinese interest there as there is pretty much everywhere else) to see who can offer him the best deal.

    The question though is who he thinks he'll get it from - and in the short run I think it is US/Saudi Arabia. Egypt will retain its partnership on the side with Russia as a backup plan and potential long-term investment, but there's just too much money on the US/Saudi side to walk away from, and Egypt is severely strapped for cash. As for Iran, they have too little to offer the Egyptians right now, while at the same time Iran's distance means that condemning Iran rhetorically (while doing nothing in reality) is something Egypt can be rewarded by the US and Saudi for at zero cost to itself.

    Talk is cheap and quickly forgotten, and Iran and Egypt will both leave whatever harsh words are spoken in the past the minute an actual relationship between the two becomes more profitable.

    Look at Erdogan, for example, a serial betrayer who's stabbed every single political partner he's ever had in the back (with a lot more than just words - turning on the Gülenists after they helped him win election, declaring Assad a friend before going all in to back his opponents, sponsoring ISIS after the US declared it an enemy, abandoning ISIS the minute it started losing, signing deals with Russia and then shooting down their jet, marginalizing his right hand man Davutoglu after relying on him for years, campaigning on a ceasefire and talks with the Kurds and then going back to bombing them, declaring Turkey new sponsor of the Palestinians after the aid convoy and then abandoning them months later, etc. etc.)

    And yet that guy, whose betrayals could fill an entire book, still gets to be a respected player that everyone has to treat with.

    El-Sisi clearly has a lot of room to hedge his bets.

  2. Israel's original plan of sowing chaos in the region was facing a "united" front based on secular Arab nationalism. Turns out, there's no such thing as the Arab nation or the Arab people -- and the Arab League splintered into Egyptian nationalism, Syrian nationalism, Iraqi nationalism, etc.

    Now the united front is coming from a jihadist coalition -- and that is held together much better than the secular nationalist coalition. Far better potential for the ideology to spread out from a single nation, to any other nation where there's a Sunni population that could be radicalized. "Behead the idolater!" is a more exportable war cry than "Egypt is the best!"

    On that note, the Jews who obsess over Jerusalem and its landmarks should worry more about the jihadists rolling into town to destroy the Wailing Wall as an object of idolatry -- of a non-Muslim religion, no less -- like they do with Muslim shrines and sites, let alone Christian and Roman pagan sites.

    Secular nationalists wouldn't be so hell-bent on destroying Jewish (or Christian or Muslim) religious sites in Israel.

  3. An interesting aspect to this is that US has essentially guaranteed the security of some arab states (Egypt, Saudi, Jordan) in exchange for not attacking Israel. Their leaders still need to use the right rhetoric because their populace hates Israel, but Israel hasn't faced a Sunni threat in decades. Much of that is US influence, due to foreign aid and many other things.

    This "Arab NATO" could be more of the same. Its a terrible idea, of course. Any autonomy in military action will mean attacks on shia regions which will inevitable lead to more US involvement in ME wars. Yemen is just an appetizer.

    The jihadi proxies of these sunni arab states have had a hush hush detente with Israel. Israel has given jihadi groups along their border medical care while they're fighting Syria. The problem that I think you're alluding to is if the Sunni-Israel alliance loses control of their own jihadi proxies. Then all bets are off.

  4. It's not so much the Sunni governments losing control of jihadist proxies, it's what happens the nano-second that Israel is no longer necessary for them. For example if there were an Arab NATO, or Saudi getting enough from the American MIC that it doesn't need to be partners with Israel.

    These Bedouin don't even trust their own family members, let alone foreigners, let alone non-Muslim foreigners.

    We propelled to Mujahideen to the top in Afghanistan during the 1980s, and what did we get in gratitude? The Taliban harboring al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda attacking us on 9/11.

    Israel does far less in support of jihadists than we have, so they're even less useful and more likely to get stabbed in the back. (Alternatively, maybe we invited a greater attack by giving so much unconditional support, making us look like naive suckers.)

  5. Nobody's readers are better informed and unsurprised about whatever has happened next...

    The Arabs growing cooler toward Israel may help explain a small-ish collection of anti-Semitic "alt-right" videos during the election. "Babe, these are $$$ and foreign, but I have no idea whom it could be?"* "Who has the motive? Russia doesn't seem right and does Saudi Arabia care enough?"

  6. Obama made his initial ME tour at around the same point in his term, 5 months in (June 2009). But his main points were essentially Western development aid to ME nations combined with some pablum about Palestinians and Israelis making peace.

    During the campaign, Trump saw that China, Iran, and Russia were aligned, and planned to peel off Russia by de-escalating NATO and (initially) agreeing to be flexible about Assad staying in Syria. I think Kissinger, channeling the MacKinder heartland thesis and the realist school of foreign policy, has been reinforcing that approach in his meetings with Trump.

    But the combination of the Russia election conspiracy, staged Syria gas attack, and general unacceptability of even discussing alternative NATO strategy have stalled the attempt at détente with Russia (or though it seems, but perhaps they made progress in their meeting with Lavrov).

    Meanwhile the Trump Pentagon wants to put up a wall of defense up against Iran and their sphere of influence with this Arab NATO idea. I have to agree that it sounds foolish.

    But it sounds doubly foolish without a de-escalation with Russia. What exactly is the overarching goal of the crowd that is trying to undermine Trump’s détente with Russia? Going to war in Syria and bringing Ukraine into NATO (the Clinton plan) are only going to further solidify the Russia, Iran, China bloc, increasing the scope of conflict in case this Arab NATO actually steps up to push back Iranian influence.

  7. More trouble in Zionist paradise (so much for the idea about "ZOG"):

    "Martin Indyk, former U.S. ambassador to Israel, tweeted that a raft of decisions on the Trump administration in regard to the visit has “soured” Israel’s mood. As well as the Masada cancellation, Trump will only spend 15 minutes at the national Holocaust memorial Yad Vashem, a move likely to offend the Israelis.

    "Ahead of the visit, a member of Trump’s diplomatic staff told the Israelis that the Western Wall was in the West Bank and they did not want Netanyahu to accompany Trump on his visit to the site. The declaration sparked Israel’s anger and a call from the government for an explanation from the White House, which subsequently said that this was not Trump’s position."

    Again, if this was just part of the US pulling out of the M-E, it'd be welcome news. But it's a sign of doubling down on making the jihadist Arabians our only allies in the region.

  8. Wow, had no idea how anti-Israel the Pentagon is:

    Some shabbas goy army!

  9. don't forget that the pentagon and congress condemned israel attacking iraq's reactors back in the 80s. that's something that the general public has forgotten about. and israeli cooperation with sunni elements is still largely covert to the extent it happens at all.

  10. It shows how airheaded the alt-right is to fixate on Jewish conspiracy.

  11. It's fine to point out the extent of Jewish influence in the sectors it controls -- education, media, entertainment, banking / finance, etc.

    But seeing a Jewish control over the military and Pentagon? If it's chafing about aligning with Israel, that's fine. But talking about the Jewish state being the driver of our policy in the M-E is totally ignorant of history.

    It also prevents them from breaking through to the normies. Normies accept "Jews in Hollywood" or "Jews in Wall Street," but "the Pentagon is the shabbas goy army for Israel"? Now you lost them, for sounding like a conspiracy nut (and one they'll associated with hitluh).

  12. It's a cartographic shoah:

    "A short video promoting President Donald Trump’s first foreign trip to the Middle East and Europe posted to the White House YouTube channel showed a map of Israel that excluded disputed territories the Gaza Strip, West Bank and Golan Heights."

  13. I have generally avoided black-pilling these past few months, but I do find it disconcerting just how quickly the classic Republican special interests have solidified their hold over this administration. In the first 4 months, Goldman Sachs took over the WH economics department (and just quashed the idea of re-instating Glass-Steagall), and the defense contractors just scored big with this Saudi arms deal.

    I get that Trump has to work within the confines of the Republican establishment to some degree, but I am left wondering just how much nationalism we are really going to see.

  14. It shows how big of a mistake we made in assuming nationalism, rather than econ populism, would be the big theme for the Trump era. I wrote a post on "don't expect populism unless there's a nationalist angle to it".

    We weren't taking into account the powerful interest groups whose primary goal is continuing our multicultural globalist empire, and that we have little political capital to push for our goals in DC. Especially going up against the Pentagon, where we no longer have civilian control over the Defense or Homeland Security depts, or NSC. So there will be no wall, no removal of millions of illegals, and therefore eventual amnesty and de facto citizenship.

    We catapaulted Trump over the castle walls all alone and barely armed. We have to do our damndest to break through the gates ourselves and help him out. Otherwise he's effectively a hostage of the Establishment.

    I saw that thing about gayface globalist Jew Goldman Sachs boy Steve Mnuchin saying flatly that they don't support the latter-day Glass-Steagall anymore.

    We've managed to get big concessions on trade and industry -- including the only silver lining in this "arm the jihadists" deal in Saudi, the investment in Rust Belt states. But the Rust Belt didn't vote based on Wall Street issues, Glass-Steagall, etc., so econ populism will be limited to trade and re-industrialization, rather than a broad phenomenon that would also touch on popping the higher ed bubble / student loan debt and the like.

    And the only reason we're getting something on trade is because of the Rust Belt voters who can deliver the White House to the GOP. The Establishment has to make them happy enough to continue voting Republican, but no more.

  15. For all we criticize the cuckservatives about fetishizing the abstract process of politics rather than actual power or force to get one's way in the outcomes, we've committed the same fallacy by assuming that just because Trump won the election, there's some dispassionate higher power who will grant him, fair-and-square, the authority to set the agenda in Congress or even within the Executive agencies, to fire and hire whom he pleases, and to rule without an attempted witch hunt by Deep State to drive him out of office in the very first months of his term.

    But there is no all-powerful blind justice god who empowers "the person who won the election" with Presidential authority and legitimacy. It's all a great big Darwinian might-makes-right struggle among the factions within the earthly elites -- Pentagon, Wall Street, etc. -- and if the election-winner doesn't have the backing of some of these groups, he is only a figurehead.

    That is turning the Trump movement into more of a popular revolt against the elites writ large, since he has no leverage other than his massive group of supporters who can mobilize into action. Hopefully this will grow to include not just the hardcore redhats, but also the normal GOP loyalist voters, once they see how little progress is made on immigration "despite" having control of both houses of Congress, conservative-friendly Supreme Court, and a rare Republican President who explicitly ran on building a wall, deporting the illegals, no amnesty or path toward citizenship, terminating birthright citizenship, and banning Muslims from entering the country.

  16. Back to the Saudi deal, I'm noticing the return of another cuckservative tendency -- fetishizing the style, appearance, and performance side of things rather than the material outcomes.

    "MELANIA WITHOUT HEADSCARF IN SAUDI ARABIA! (btw, we also gave hundreds of billions of heavy arms to the jihadist medieval monarchy that blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11...)"

    The Establishment is happy to feed us a few troll pellets as long as they get to continue, or escalate, the business as usual that we fervently voted against.

    "Yeah, Reagan just sent however-many millions of good-paying jobs overseas, and amnestied millions of illegal invaders -- but did you see how he BTFO that snotnosed liberal reporter at the press conference?! REKT"

    If substantial change is not possible, we might as well be thankful for a troll President who will call out the fake news etc. But there's too much discontent over the fundamentals in this country for the popular anger to be dissipated through the style-obsessed release valve. It's just delaying the inevitable revolt, which will be worse the longer it is pent up.

  17. Bringing him up does make me think that one of the biggest obstances we have is overcoming the Cult of St. Ronald. He's practically a messianic figure to the entrenched powers (especially the Neocons) to an utterly absurd degree and as long as the GOP still prays at the altar of Reagan it seems like we're never going to be able to move on in terms of... everything really. The Neo Cold War mindset regarding foreign policy, the ball-tickling of the banks domestically, standing aside as foreigners from south of the border take jobs while bringing only crime and the erosion of our national identity (and our neighborhoods and towns; look at how they've pushed blacks out of Compton in only 20 or so years).

  18. I'd also ask too if there's anything to be worried about in regards to the whole "well we can't just tell Saudi Arabia to get fucked because otherwise they'll crash the US dollar" shit. I wouldn't claim to know enough about how any of that works to know if that's a legitimate danger or no; I've heard the fears of the Chinese "crashing the economy" for instance are way overblown.

  19. It's worth noting that Iran was under other peoples sphere of influences more than it influenced from the 1800s up until the shah was overthrown in 1979.

  20. You're confusing distant genetic lineage with current ethnicity or nationality. The Qajars were not from a foreign independently powerful nation, and so Iran was not under foreign national control during their dynasty.

    To judge foreign control, just answer: what other nation is controlling the nation in question?

    The Pahlavi dynasty following the Qajars was not a client state of a foreign power until the 1950s.

  21. " "well we can't just tell Saudi Arabia to get fucked because otherwise they'll crash the US dollar" shit."

    I've only heard a few people ever mention it, and they were on the conspiracy / libertarian side, so I'll discount it without knowing what their full argument is.

    Otherwise it would be one of those things that every knowledgeable person regarding the M-E would know about and refer to, whether they were pro or con the theory.

  22. The Saudis are not our friends and the Iranians are not our enemies.

  23. I’ve heard it explained by Jim Rickards, who I think can be insightful. The combination of China surpassing the US as Saudi Arabia’s chief buyer of oil, and Obama’s pivot away from SA to Iran, increased the likelihood that the Saudis would move off the petrodollar system and start pricing their oil in a different currency. That would lower international demand for the dollar, causing its devaluation, which would coincide with the Arab kingdoms dumping their $5-10 trillion in dollar reserves, resulting in dollar inflation and rising interest rates for new public debt issuance.

    Rickards doesn’t necessarily think this will happen immediately. Before Trump, he saw it as increasing in likelihood due to Obama’s positioning, and due to Russia and China’s discussion of the idea of a sort of Eurasian trade union that uses a non-dollar currency for trade, including energy.

    Obviously Trump has re-pivoted back to the Saudis, ensuring that they invest their dollar reserves back into the US, and pushing this Arab NATO idea in an attempt to roll back Iran’s sphere of influence.

  24. I am concerned we are getting closer to the U.S attempting regime change in Syria. If Russia defends Assad I would be cheering for Russia to defeat our troops. Does this make me a traitor? I really don't want to be. I strongly favor secularism over Saudi style Islam and I wish the U.S shared this perspective but the deep state clearly has a neocon orientation. The worst case scenario is we start WW3 over this. If we attempt to overthrow Assad I can't imagine the Pentagon backing down no matter how dire the consequences are.

  25. Boomertards switching to Saudis as ARE GREATEST ALLY?

    "The Saudi's are more supportive, Patriotic and team players than any of the modern day Democrats"

    Top Facebook comment on that neo-con speech that the Pentagon forced Trump to read.

    The lie-burials HATE arming the custodians of the Two Holiest Cities. That's right, folks, Dumbocraps are the REAL Islamophobes!

  26. Only the most loyal of allies would blow up one of our symbols of finance as well as the building that houses the DoD, kill thousands of our citizens and help spread jihadism to such a degree that we're now told that a monthly snackbarring or visit by the Truck of Peace is part and parcel with living in the western world.

  27. "Don Walker‏ @FreedomFight01 2h2 hours ago

    Must be killing liberals to see him being treated better than Obama was."

    Heh, the lie-bury-us-alls are just jealous that the Party of Lincoln has more Bedouin jihadist friends than they do. Maybe if they weren't so obsessed with their conspiracy theories about 9/11 being a Saudi job, they'd have tolerant Gulf allies of their own.

  28. Wow, Judith Miller kvetching like crazy on Judge Jeanine just now, about the administration favoring Saudi over Israel on the trip and slighting Israel in general.

    It's official: (((they))) know about "Friendship ended with Zionists, Now jihadists are my best friend."

    Judge Jeanine said why not be content with the common anti-Iranian outcome of favoring the Saudis, and Miller said "Yeah but" Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.

    Ha, she's stuck in the Bush years, when that was still a fig-leaf cover for our foreign policy there. Remember how Tillerson just said we don't care what a government gets up to (like supporting jihadists), as long as they're on our side in the geopolitical struggle for the balance of power?

    So that "only democracy" argument is going to go nowhere with the Pentagon and oil groups, who actually run the show, no matter how much traction the slogan has among Cultural Rightists.

    Under the pressure, Miller forgot to give the "birthplace of Judeo-Christian values" rationalization, since she like most Jews doesn't care about God, Christ, the Temple, or any of that religious stuff. How are you going to continue tricking the goyim without mentioning "Muh Judeo-Christian values," Judith?

    The Jews are going to dig themselves so deep on this one, and that's only going to antagonize the Pentagon further. If the Zionists don't watch it, they're going to find themselves the next secular regime in the M-E that Uncle Sam launches airstrikes against, for not behaving like a subservient client state. In 10 years, Bibi will be the new Saddam in American propaganda.

  29. It does seem like the Persians were the real dominant force in Mideast history. Ottoman dominance may have been a fluke caused by falling crime rates - worldwide crime fell for most of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries I believe, making cocooned populations prefer bureaucratic rule. When crime began rising in earnest circa 1900, the Ottomans dissolved not too long afterwards.

  30. err, make that 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

  31. There is no data about worldwide crime rates back then.

  32. I was referencing this post you made about European homicide rates, and just projected it to Turkey and the Mideast, since they are close by(which may have been a bad idea):

    Somewhere between 1450 and 1550 the European homicide rate began a secular decline that continues through today. However, there have been several reversals of that decline: from ca. 1580 to 1630 (the Elizabethan-Jacobean period), 1780 to 1830 (the Romantic-Gothic period), in some places from 1900 to 1930 (the Jazz Age), and finally from 1960 to 1990 (the New Wave Age)."

    Seems to imply that at least for Europe, it was falling-crime throughout the most of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

  33. And now I realize I did say "worldwide", which was a mistake, because I forgot exactly what the original post said.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."